Sensation som du ikke kommer til at høre om: lavdosis radioaktiv stråling er ikke farlig


Junk Science refererer vedrørende LNT (LinearNoTreshold) udsættelse for radioaktiv stråling. :

It Is Time to Move Beyond the Linear No-Threshold Theory for Low-Dose Radiation Protection
John J. Cardarelli II1 and Brant A. Ulsh2

The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the primary federal agency responsible for promulgating regulations and
policies to protect people and the environment from ionizing radiation. Currently, the USEPA uses the linear no-threshold (LNT)
model to estimate cancer risks and determine cleanup levels in radiologically contaminated environments. The LNT model implies
that there is no safe dose of ionizing radiation; however, adverse effects from low dose, low-dose rate (LDDR) exposures are not
detectable. This article (1) provides the scientific basis for discontinuing use of the LNT model in LDDR radiation environments,
(2) shows that there is no scientific consensus for using the LNT model, (3) identifies USEPA reliance on outdated scientific
information, and (4) identifies regulatory reliance on incomplete evaluations of recent data contradicting the LNT. It is the time to
reconsider the use of the LNT model in LDDR radiation environments. Incorporating the latest science into the regulatory
process for risk assessment will (1) ensure science remains the foundation for decision making, (2) reduce unnecessary burdens of
costly cleanups, (3) educate the public on the real effects of LDDR radiation exposures, and (4) harmonize government policies
with the rest of the radiation scientific community.

Specielt står der i konklusionen:

Since the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant accident in
1979, the world has experienced several large-scale nuclear or
radiological accidents (eg, Chernobyl, 1986; Goiania, 1987;
Fukushima, 2011), affecting millions of people and contaminating
millions of hectares of land. The 2011 Fukushima NPP
accident is the most recent radiological accident. The accident
itself caused no radiation-related deaths175; however, the evacuation
in response to the accident, combined with the
extended exclusion of area residents from their homes, has
increased mortality from various stress-related causes. The
elderly individuals are especially vulnerable to these
effects,176-178 and over 1600 people died as a result179 of the
response to the Fukushima accident. A retrospective evaluation
has concluded that the risk from the evacuation outweighed any
hypothetical risk of radiation exposure calculated using the
LNT model,184,185 particularly among the elderly individuals,199
the evacuation did not protect human health, and was
therefore unethical.200
Scientists and society continue to learn from these events by
questioning how we can strengthen our resilience, reduce the
time it takes to resume normal lifestyles, maintain economic
viability, and minimize adverse psychological effects. The scientific
literature is showing, and scientific organizations
acknowledge, that adverse health effects from LDDR radiation
exposures are not detectable and that there may be a threshold
or even a beneficial effect. These findings contradict the use of
LNT model-based predictions.

Du kommer ikke til at høre om det, fordi det ikke passer ind i atomkraftmodstandernes kram.

3 Kommentarer

  1. Jeg har ikke forstand på det her, men som lystfisker er der èt sted jeg mere end noget andet kunne tænke mig at sænke mit agn ned i, og det er kølevandssøerne ved Chernobyl. Jeg har set film derfra, og kan konstatere, at alle fiskearter er kæmpestore og supersunde. Kæmpestore, fordi ingen må fange dem, og supersunde, fordi de ikke kan vokse sig så store, uden at være det.

Leave a Reply

Din email adresse vil ikke blive vist offentligt.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.