Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Panic Over Fukushima

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 116 posts

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#2

Post by dmoy »

I don't know of any authoritative resources on radiation->cancer risk, can anyone provide more information? The article starts out with a cool premise but I have a hard time swallowing the linear rem->%chance relationship described here

"If 25 rem gives you a 1% chance of getting cancer, then a dose of 2,500 rem (25 rem times 100) implies that you will get cancer (a 100% chance)"

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#4

Post by [deleted] »

dmoy wrote: post #2

I don't know of any authoritative resources on radiation->cancer risk, can anyone provide more information? The article starts out with a cool premise but I have a hard time swallowing the linear rem->%chance relationship described here "If 25 rem gives you a 1% chance of getting cancer, then a dose of 2,500 rem (25 rem times 100) implies that you will get cancer (a 100% chance)"

[deleted]

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#5

Post by lisper »

dmoy wrote: post #2

I don't know of any authoritative resources on radiation->cancer risk, can anyone provide more information? The article starts out with a cool premise but I have a hard time swallowing the linear rem->%chance relationship described here "If 25 rem gives you a 1% chance of getting cancer, then a dose of 2,500 rem (25 rem times 100) implies that you will get cancer (a 100% chance)"

Wikipedia is your friend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roentgen_equivalent_man

It's not authoritative, but if you really want to dig in to the issue the references at the end of the article are a good place to start.

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#7

Post by radu_floricica »

> Looking back more than a year after the event, it is clear that the Fukushima reactor complex, though nowhere close to state-of-the-art, was adequately designed to contain radiation. New reactors can be made even safer, of course, but the bottom line is that Fukushima passed the test.

He made a good argument that new cancer cases are statistically few, but I can't see what test Fukushima passed. As far as I know there were multiple meltdowns and dumping radioactive water into the ocean. From an engineering point of view, it was a clear-cut failure. If not of implementation, then at least of specifications and margins.

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#8

Post by radu_floricica »

mbateman wrote: post #6

Maybe I was being ridiculously optimistic, but ~200 projected additional cases of cancer seems pretty bad.

You really have to put things in context, otherwise you get into the "think of the children" fallacy, where everything is worth the effort if it saves one life.

We die of three causes: cancer, heart problems and strokes. Well over 30% die of cancer. So this means some of those 200 will die of cancer before they die of something else (some of them will recover and live to die from heart attack later). This makes the new deaths a really tiny percentage, which means policy-wise it's hardly worth discussing.

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#9

Post by archgoon »

dmoy wrote: post #2

I don't know of any authoritative resources on radiation->cancer risk, can anyone provide more information? The article starts out with a cool premise but I have a hard time swallowing the linear rem->%chance relationship described here "If 25 rem gives you a 1% chance of getting cancer, then a dose of 2,500 rem (25 rem times 100) implies that you will get cancer (a 100% chance)"

Unfortunately, we don't have the data. Yep, it's non linear, but all of our data is basically on two ends of the spectrum. Low amounts of radiation on one end, accumulated from natural sources or working at nuclear plants, and high amounts of radiation on the other, accumulated from survivors of Hiroshima, Cherynobyl, and some nuclear accidents.

So, given those data points, with clusters on two ends of this spectrum you're stuck with interpolation. Ideally, we'd like a good, predictive, biological based model that explicitly showed how you go from biological damage to cancer or death. We don't have that (though there are people researching it), so we go with statistical techniques. This results in basically 3 different proposed models.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model

The Linear No Threshold Model:

Draw a line between the two regions. Bam! Done.

This is clearly wrong for very large doses, but is used mostly to try and estimate the effect of a small change in radiation exposure to predict increase in cancer incidence. This is very important for public policy. Of course, this makes all these models politically contested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_model

Threshold Model

This model predicts that small amounts of radiation has zero effect on cancer incidence. According to this model, going to higher altitude, or taking a plane flight, won't increase your risk of cancer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

Radiation Hormesis

A little radiation is good for you! The biological argument is that your body gets used to dealing with damage from radiation. Don't tax it too hard and you'll be stronger. So take a plane trip, and enjoy the X-ray scans!

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#10

Post by jackpirate »

radu_floricica wrote: post #7

> Looking back more than a year after the event, it is clear that the Fukushima reactor complex, though nowhere close to state-of-the-art, was adequately designed to contain radiation. New reactors can be made even safer, of course, but the bottom line is that Fukushima passed the test. He made a good argument that new cancer cases are statistically few, but I can't see what test Fukushima passed. As far as I know th…

But it could have been much worse, say like Chernobyl, and it wasn't due to good engineering.
Post reply on HN