[ RadSafe ] (not international) stop using linear no-threshold(LNT) model
Brennan, Mike (DOH)
Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV
Wed Apr 24 13:32:08 CDT 2013
First, I disagree with your statement that "Censorship is heavy on this
forum." I have read this forum for a number of years, and have seen
people with wildly differing positions post here. Some of them have
been clearly technically wrong, as well as unpleasant in the way they
addressed others, and still they were allowed to post. I believe the
moderators have been very light handed in removing people and/or posts,
even when they felt it would be justified. Having been a moderator I
know how difficult this can be.
Second, if LNT can be demonstrated not to be a valid model, then it
makes sense to replace it with a more valid model. To do anything else
is not scientifically sound. " LNT was adopted not for scientific
reasons, but for political reasons." is not justification, it is an
inditement against it. "Once the barrier is broken, there will be no
rationale left preventing inflationary raising of allowed contamination
levels." is a slippery slope argument that fails for several reasons;
(1) if higher contamination levels are not a health risk, then there is
no reason to adopt them, (2) the described danger does not in fact
necessarily follow (just as allowing gay people to marry does not
naturally open the door for marriage between people and entities that
cannot consent, such as children, sheep, or toasters), and (3) it is
entirely possible that allowing higher contamination levels in some
areas (such as waste disposal) will actually decrease overall risk to
the public, by freeing up resources currently spent on unnecessarily
conservative activities, and making them available for other, more
productive activities (such as dismantling old dams that are no longer
capable of withstanding earthquakes.
Third, "When the nuclear industry can no longer follow LNT methods
because they already poisoned half of planet EARTH, then there is only
one logical step left: CLOSE ALL NUCLEAR PLANTS." Contains several
fallacies. The "nuclear industry" can follow LNT methods; it simply may
be a better use of resources to set standards based on some other risk
model, particularly if LNT is demonstrated to not be valid. The phrase
"...they already poisoned half of planet EARTH,..." implies something
that is not true, and is not possible in any meaningful way. "... then
there is only one logical step left: CLOSE ALL NUCLEAR PLANTS." is a
conclusion that does not necessarily follow from the preceding
statements, which are, in any case, not factual.
Helmut, I welcome you to this forum. I think we could have some
interesting discussions, and have some fun. We can learn things from
each other, even if we do not come to a meeting of minds. I would
encourage you to improve your understanding of your own positions by
formulating them in logical, consistent, evidence-based statements, as
those will be most likely to get others to take you seriously. I
encourage you to not think people on this forum are stupid or ignorant
because they do not accept your position out of hand, because there are
some people here who are brilliant and knowledgeable to a level that
leaves me in awe. Please feel free to defend you positions, but if you
expect to change anyone's mind, you need to show yours is also open.
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Helmut Wabnig
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:35 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] (not international) stop using linear
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:20:53 -0700, you wrote:
>>April 24, 2013
>The LNT model is devoid of merit. I explained the science that proves
>this fact in my Health Physics Forum Article "Toward Improved Ionizing
>Radiation Safety Standards, Health Physics 101: 84-93; 2011.
>If you want a copy send a request to ograabe at ucdavis.edu
>The EPA standards are ridiculously low due to their application of' the
>faulty LNT hypothesis leading to the unnecessary expenditure of
>billions of dollars moving virtually clean dirt and refuse to expensive
waste disposal facilities.
>This petition does not suggest eliminating radiation safety standards
>but rather switching to scientifically sound standards.
Censorship is heavy on this forum.
Nevertheless I try to explain what will happen next:
(once the LNT is toppled)
The nuclear industry will be happy to raise the pollution levels to the
maximum allowed extent, always bragging about the latest scientific
discoveries. They will joyously pick up the argument how increased
radiation levels benefit your health.
Once the barrier is broken, there will be no rationale left preventing
inflationary raising of allowed contamination levels.
LNT was adopted not for scientific reasons, but for political reasons.
When the nuclear industry can no longer follow LNT methods because they
already poisoned half of planet EARTH, then there is only one logical
CLOSE ALL NUCLEAR PLANTS.
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
More information about the RadSafe