I find that report sensible  and realistic. It notes that the LNT is probably wrong, but it is the only usable risk tool we have. To try and incorporate a threshold and a dose rate response in radiation control legislation is currently not possible.

When you consider the entire cost basis of nuclear power is based on a concept that is probably wrong it is a little worrying. More sensible radiation limits would significantly reduce the costs of nuclear power with no increased risks.

The report addresses and discounts the ‘low dose radiation is more risky that high dose radiation’ concepts put forward by Busby and his cohort but doesn’t look at the other argument for radiation hormesis.

There seem to have been two main areas of research into hormesis, one the Radon - lung cancer relationship in the USA and two the group of buildings in Taiwan that were built with Cobalt 60 contaminated rebars. Both appear to show a reduction in the incidence of cancers with an increasing low level of radiation. As a well-documented long term exposure to moderate levels of radiation I would expect the Taiwan apartments to carry similar importance to the study of the atomic bomb victims but that doesn’t seem to be the case. The only western journal to carry it is the potentially dubious ‘Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons’. Here are links to the Taiwanese report and a hormesis paper, both well referenced.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477686/

I am not sure about radiation hormesis, we have always been bathed in natural radiation so it is likely that we have developed some protection mechanisms, but is radiation really a requirement for our bodies? Is the lack of research because there is nothing there or because it is potentially embarrassing to the ‘establishment’?

I find that report sensible  and realistic. It notes that the LNT is probably wrong, but it is the only usable risk tool we have. To try and incorporate a threshold and a dose rate response in radiation control legislation is currently not possible.

When you consider the entire cost basis of nuclear power is based on a concept that is probably wrong it is a little worrying. More sensible radiation limits would significantly reduce the costs of nuclear power with no increased risks.

The report addresses and discounts the ‘low dose radiation is more risky that high dose radiation’ concepts put forward by Busby and his cohort but doesn’t look at the other argument for radiation hormesis.

There seem to have been two main areas of research into hormesis, one the Radon - lung cancer relationship in the USA and two the group of buildings in Taiwan that were built with Cobalt 60 contaminated rebars. Both appear to show a reduction in the incidence of cancers with an increasing low level of radiation. As a well-documented long term exposure to moderate levels of radiation I would expect the Taiwan apartments to carry similar importance to the study of the atomic bomb victims but that doesn’t seem to be the case. The only western journal to carry it is the potentially dubious ‘Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons’. Here are links to the Taiwanese report and a hormesis paper, both well referenced.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477686/

I am not sure about radiation hormesis, we have always been bathed in natural radiation so it is likely that we have developed some protection mechanisms, but is radiation really a requirement for our bodies? Is the lack of research because there is nothing there or because it is potentially embarrassing to the ‘establishment’?