• Thank you for visiting the Cafe Rad Lab Forum
  • We present & discuss radiation health, science & news
  • To keep you informed about vital nuke information.
Hello There, Guest! Login Register

The Politics of Radiation Standards
Brant Ulsh  I think is his name.

These Hormesis guys suffer a logic problem.  The logic failure is thinking that an addition of toxic radiation is good for people and the ecosystem.  H....H, H, H, Horor...Hormesis says that when you increase radiation, some minor health benefits can be observed, but further increases cause harm.  So lets call that 'beneficial extra radiation'  the goldilocks zone.  (please excuse me, I stutter from emotional stress when trying to say Hor...Horm...H.H.H....Hormesis)

 Now the geographical and population radiation levels vary.  A large percentage of people have had x-rays and are exposed to the fallout from nuclear catastrophes, and this is represented by the peaked lower line in the graph below.  Everyone has a different dose.   Now if you add more radiation...if you could add it evenly, then this would increase everyones dose, represented by the higher peaked line.  And its easy to see that you brought everyone out of the goldilocks zone into the danger zone.  Populations that were enjoying this hypothetical increase in health no longer have it, and those populations that were dipping into the danger area become sicker and will have more cancer.

That simplified picture does not include the fact that the stimulatory effect of increased levels of radiation can have negative effects.  For example it makes cancers more difficult to treat,  it may have time limits, it may increase inflammation leading to disease.  And a big factor, never discussed is that of radiation quality.  Fallout is a very different kind of radiation source than natural radiation.  Man made radiation has a ubiquitous quality of causing high local points of radiation...in many systems and size scales.

It only requires the intelligence of a fifth grade student to see that the logic of adding radiation for health is flawed.  

The bystander effect and the hormesis effect are a continuum called 'biological response' or 'stress response'.  It is perhaps this insight that caused Calabrese, the most outspoken hormesis promoter to publish a paper saying we must uncouple the idea of hormesis from a positive response.  That is a major admission, in my opinion. 

Quote:Last year, Ulsh told The Associated Press that “we spend an enormous effort trying to minimize low doses” at nuclear power plants, for example.

“Instead, let’s spend the resources on minimizing the effect of a really big event,” he said.

To which the NRC says, they're saving money too.  http://caferadlab.com/thread-3648-post-9...ml#pid9032
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
July 24, 2019
Lawsuit Challenges Political Meddling in EPA Public Records Changes
WASHINGTON - The Center for Biological Diversity and the Environmental Integrity Project sued the Trump administration today over sweeping changes to how the Environmental Protection Agency handles public-records requests under the Freedom of Information Act. The EPA’s new rule will take effect Friday.

The lawsuit challenges the EPA rule’s most problematic provisions, which give Trump administration political appointees unprecedented power over whether to release public documents. The lawsuit also challenges the EPA’s new process for accepting public records requests, as well as changes that will further delay agency responses.

“This rule is a shameful attempt to keep Americans in the dark about the Trump administration’s sickening failures to protect our air, water and wildlife,” said Meg Townsend, the Center’s open government attorney. “EPA officials issued this rule without any public comment opportunity because they knew people wouldn’t stand for it. We have a right to know what EPA is trying to hide and which Trump appointee is trying to hide it.”
By: Associated Press
PHOENIX (AP) - Arizona water regulators have rejected an application by an electric company to use groundwater to cool the nuclear power plant west of Phoenix because the water is already being used.

The Arizona Republic reported Monday that the state Department of Water Resources denied the request from Arizona Public Service Company to use the water and study it as an alternative to expensive reclaimed water because it is being used.

Department officials say the permit requires water has no other beneficial use.

Company officials say the permit would allow them to blend groundwater with the treated waste water from the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Officials say they are looking for cost-effective solutions for water to power the nuclear plant in the future.


Palo Verde produces electric power for several of the American Southwest’s most densely populated areas, including Phoenix, Tucson, Los Angeles and San Diego.

The plant is unique among American power plants as its desert location puts it away from major bodies of water, and the plant uses treated municipal sewage to provide cooling liquid for its operations.
Tweet from Edwin Lyman, with the Unioin of Concerned Scientists

Unbelievable: @NRCgov memo reveals the agency is considering a "clean sheet" approach for licensing so-called "advanced" #nuclear reactors that could include "revisiting the linear no-threshold model for assessing health effects of #radiation." https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2028/ML20288A251.pdf

"revisiting the linear no-threshold model for assessing health effects of #radiation."...Sounds like an opportunity...
don't stir up the hot particles

Forum Jump:

Browsing: 1 Guest(s)