http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/04/applying-union-of-concerned-scientist.html
linear law no treshold is pure bullshit. Hormesis exist. dose below 100mSv have no effect... even 1Sv is just few % death by cancer (that is the basic of LLNT established from Hiroshima) The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) All Things Nuclear blog has an analysis of how many deaths occurred at Chernobyl based on linear no threshold view of radiation.<http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/4704112149/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-really-cause-updated#disqus_thread> So 0.01 milliSieverts (1 milliRem) for each of 6 billion people in the world is calculated to add 4000 deaths from cancer. 0.3 milliSieverts (30 milliRem) for 500 million people in europe is calculated to add 9000 more deaths from cancer. Using the same analysis (NEI Nuclear Notes) found that, 79,000 and 40,000 would be reasonable estimates of the number of excess cancers and cancer deaths attributable to the flying in the past decade.<http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2011/04/ucs-science-how-many-cancers-did.html> The numbers increase even more over the 25 years since Chernobyl and would be 200,000 excess cancers and 100,000 excess deaths from commercial aviation over the last 25 years. As the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) explains, exposure to cosmic radiation depends on altitude, latitude, and solar activity, but the EPA estimates that "a typical cross-country flight in a commercial airplane" results in "2 to 5 millirem (mrem)" of dose from radiation. radiation is toxic at high dose, and high rate of dose... Prolonged low dose radiation study at 400 times background levels finds no DNA effect<http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/05/prolonged-low-dose-radiation-study-at.html> like on cold fusion, some people should respect science for lower dose, it is benign, if not beneficial... like most genotoxic are. like sun, oxygen, water, arsenic, heat 2014/1/8 H Veeder <[email protected]> > Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and > Projected Nuclear Power > > abstract > In the aftermath of the March 2011 accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi > nuclear power plant, the future contribution of nuclear power to the global > energy supply has become somewhat uncertain. Because nuclear power is an > abundant, low-carbon source of base-load power, it could make a large > contribution to mitigation of global climate change and air pollution. > Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power > has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and > 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions > that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. On the basis of global > projection data that take into account the effects of the Fukushima > accident, we find that nuclear power could additionally prevent an average > of 420 000–7.04 million deaths and 80–240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil > fuels by midcentury, depending on which fuel it replaces. By contrast, we > assess that large-scale expansion of unconstrained natural gas use would > not mitigate the climate problem and would cause far more deaths than > expansion of nuclear power. > > http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197?source=cen > > no registration or subscription required to view the full paper > > Harry > > >
