Re: [DMCForum] Radiation risk Yes? No?

[Bob Brandys <BobB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The debate about the risk of nuclear power centers on the question of 
modeling the risk.

Is there a tolerance level, say 4 picocuries per day, below which the 
human body repairs radiation related damage.

or

should the risk model go to zero exposure equals zero risk.?

The anti nuclear people claim the zero risk model is accurate and no 
exposure is best.

on the other hand..

radiation exposure is a fact of life.  It occurs naturally are part of 
the environment and solar radiation.

This normal radiation level produces sister chromatid  exchange rates 
of about 4% in the normal population.   The degree to which the body 
repairs these is debatable, but the log term effects in terms of cancer 
or birth effects has not been measurable.
This would seem to imply that there is a lower threshold to radiation 
exposure below which the human body (and other animal and plant 
species) have adjusted to (by evolution) so that it does not produce 
long term health effects in the population.

The latest risk analysis by the UN on Chernobyl appear to confirm this 
threshold risk model - along with numerous other studies of small 
population groups.


ON the other hand, the anti nuclear people IGNORE this SCIENCE and keep 
on the paranoia.


BOB

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

•  Visit your group "DMCForum" on the web.
   
•  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   DMCForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   
•  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---