There are two errors regarding risk from radioactivity which have caused great harm, including energy poverty, deaths from air pollution, and increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. The increased air pollution results in millions of avoidable deaths every year. The increase in CO2 has already accelerated global warming and raises the risk of runaway warming, which could be catastrophic.
The first error is using the Linear No Threshold (LNT) model for calculating risk. This assumes that there is no safe dose of radioactivity and that we can calculate the risk by extrapolating from high to low doses. While the LNT model is almost certainly wrong, it is difficult to prove this.
The second, lesser-known error is the relative risk error. It is much easier to prove this as the data are available and accepted.
The consensus view of the International Committee for Radiation Protection (IRCP) is that increased risk of mortality from radioactivity is 5.5% per 1000 milliSievert (mSv). The ‘safe’ level set by all international regulators for public exposure to radioactivity from nuclear reactors is 1 mSv/year. For nuclear waste it is 0.04 mSv/year above background.
This exposure would increase mortality by 0.00022-0.0055% (at 0.04-1 mSv/year).
For comparison, the increased risk of mortality from exposure to the most dangerous air pollution (PM2.5 particles) is 0.68% per 10 ug/m^3. The level of PM2.5 particles recommended by the latest (2021) WHO air quality guidelines is 5-15 ug/m^3.
So the recommended level of PM2.5 air pollution would increase mortality over 120-3000 times more than the recommended level of radioactivity exposure (0.68% versus 0.0055%-0.00022%).
It follows that our regulations value a life lost to radioactivity AT LEAST 100 times more than a life lost to air pollution.
There is simply no justification for this irrational policy.
Thank you, it is definitely worth pointing the relative risk error out. The corrololy should be that if the relative risk model is wrong then the LNT model is certainly wrong.
I put many references as to why LNT is wrong in the interview with Edward Calabrese.
The French Académie des Sciences , did a epidemiological study in 2005 and notably concluded that above 100 millisievert the risk of cancer is within the noise. On that basis we can eat least relax the standard by a factor of 10, which would bring it in line with what was the empirically understood standard during the Manhattan Program.
There are two errors regarding risk from radioactivity which have caused great harm, including energy poverty, deaths from air pollution, and increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. The increased air pollution results in millions of avoidable deaths every year. The increase in CO2 has already accelerated global warming and raises the risk of runaway warming, which could be catastrophic.
The first error is using the Linear No Threshold (LNT) model for calculating risk. This assumes that there is no safe dose of radioactivity and that we can calculate the risk by extrapolating from high to low doses. While the LNT model is almost certainly wrong, it is difficult to prove this.
The second, lesser-known error is the relative risk error. It is much easier to prove this as the data are available and accepted.
The consensus view of the International Committee for Radiation Protection (IRCP) is that increased risk of mortality from radioactivity is 5.5% per 1000 milliSievert (mSv). The ‘safe’ level set by all international regulators for public exposure to radioactivity from nuclear reactors is 1 mSv/year. For nuclear waste it is 0.04 mSv/year above background.
This exposure would increase mortality by 0.00022-0.0055% (at 0.04-1 mSv/year).
For comparison, the increased risk of mortality from exposure to the most dangerous air pollution (PM2.5 particles) is 0.68% per 10 ug/m^3. The level of PM2.5 particles recommended by the latest (2021) WHO air quality guidelines is 5-15 ug/m^3.
So the recommended level of PM2.5 air pollution would increase mortality over 120-3000 times more than the recommended level of radioactivity exposure (0.68% versus 0.0055%-0.00022%).
It follows that our regulations value a life lost to radioactivity AT LEAST 100 times more than a life lost to air pollution.
There is simply no justification for this irrational policy.
Thank you, it is definitely worth pointing the relative risk error out. The corrololy should be that if the relative risk model is wrong then the LNT model is certainly wrong.
I put many references as to why LNT is wrong in the interview with Edward Calabrese.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3ytR1-o7dI&t=1286s
The French Académie des Sciences , did a epidemiological study in 2005 and notably concluded that above 100 millisievert the risk of cancer is within the noise. On that basis we can eat least relax the standard by a factor of 10, which would bring it in line with what was the empirically understood standard during the Manhattan Program.
https://www.redjournal.org/article/S0360-3016(05)01135-1/fulltext
"