On 09/01/2021 14:19, A. Dumas wrote:
> Jan Panteltje  wrote:
>> Later ... we had the Chernobyl fallout, and where I worked the filters in
>> the aircos were hot (radiation) and had to be properly disposed.
>> That made me want to measure things, by that time I lost my nuculear fear
btw,
>> But nobody died, vegetables in your garden you were not recommended to eat.
>
>  From "Int. J. Cancer: 119, 1224–1235 (2006)" via
>
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/44334601/Estimates_of_the_cancer_burden_i
n_Europe20160402-19341-ugwo1h.pdf
>
> "The risk projections suggest that by now Chernobyl may have caused about
> 1,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 4,000 cases of other cancers in Europe,
> representing about 0.01% of all incident cancers since the accident. Models
> pre- dict that by 2065 about 16,000 (95% UI 3,400–72,000) cases of thy-
> roid cancer and 25,000 (95% UI 11,000–59,000) cases of other can- cers may
> be expected due to radiation from the accident, whereas several hundred
> million cancer cases are expected from other causes. Although these
> estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty, they provide an
> indication of the order of magnitude of the possible impact of the
> Chernobyl accident. It is unlikely that the cancer bur- den from the
> largest radiological accident to date could be detected by monitoring
> national cancer statistics. Indeed, results of analyses of time trends in
> cancer incidence and mortality in Europe do not, at present, indicate any
> increase in cancer rates—other than of thyroid cancer in the most
> contaminated regions—that can be clearly attributed to radiation from the
> Chernobyl accident."
>
Well yes, the 'risk projections' is a mealy mouthed way of saying
'models based on assumptions'

At least the conclusions is 'too small to be reliably measured'

And what assumptions? LNT?

Almost certainly because no one else has really come up with anything
more accurate. We know LNT is between 100 and 1000 times too
pessimistic, at any elevated dose levels and the truth is that peak
dosage is far more important than cumulative chronic low level dosage.

Exclusion zone at Chernobyl is quite low - there are hot spots but
mostly its in the 20-50mSv/y level. Ramsar in Iran has a background of
50-200mSv/y. It has a lightly *lower* cancer rate than average. (it's
not statistically significant IIRC)

The key to cellular mutations seems to be to get enough radiation to
cause BOTH strands of DNA to mutate identically before  the cell dies.
That a very slender chance at low dosages.

If you get radiotherapy *enough radiation to kill you* if applied whole
body is given. Several Sv in a short time. There is a 15% increased
chance of unrelated cancers developing as a result.

And that's it. a few people died at Hiroshima  from radiation induced
cancers a few years later, but the majority of people died then and
there from blast and incineration or in the next few weeks from massive
radiation exposure. Hiroshima was never cleaned up, and its a healthy
place to live now.





--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05