Monday, January 14, 2013
Anti-Nuclear No Lower Threshold Theory Dropped - Continued
Jerry Pournelle published it today adding this comment:
As far as I am concerned, the linear damage all the way down hypothesis was disproved years ago, and the balance of evidence strongly favors the theory of hormesis. The linear damage theory says that the dose make the poison, and even a little bit of radiation damage is too much; hormesis says that a little bit of radiation can actually be good for you. It does NOT state that if a little is good more is better.
We discussed all this years ago at http://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2mail/mail311.html#hormesis
And more recently at http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/2010/Q1/mail616.html#hormesis
See also http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2010/03/radiation-hormesis-spreading-question.html
And in fact I have been writing about this since my days as science editor of Galaxy Science Fiction. There is a section on radiation hormesis in A Step Farther Out http://www.amazon.com/Step-Farther-Out-Jerry-Pournelle/dp/0441785832
But one need not accept hormesis to realize that the lowest levels of radiation don’t have much effect on large mammals.
Predictably the world's mainstream media has continued censoring.
So at least both are a bit more sophisticated than what I think of as Guardian-science, as in "ooh, it's got a carcinogen in it so it will kill us all".
The quote given used to be used by the undisputed view of the medical profession, but we now live in an age of hysterical state promoted fears of everything.
For example salt is a poison if you eat it by the pound but its total absence will swiftly kill.
Hormesis is the normal state in nature, LNT is virtually unknown anywhere.