A Little Bit May Be Good For You
| Bill-Wilson.net :: Nuclear Energy :: Nuclear Articles ... | (Menu) |
It is generally assumed that any amount of radiation exposure, no matter how small, is harmful to human health. The so-called Linear-No Threshold (LNT) hypothesis is the embodiment of this concept. The LNT hypothesis assumes that:
- biological harm due to low doses of radiation is directly proportional to dose, and
- there is no dose threshold below which there is no harm done.
For years, the LNT hypothesis has been argued from two opposing viewpoints. The first, generally accepted by all anti-nuclear activists, is that biological sensitivity to radiation is higher at low dose levels than at higher doses. Under this model, you would actually see an increase in biological damage as dose is decreased.
The second viewpoint, held by a growing number of radiation health scientists, is that biological sensitivity at low dose levels is lessened. Furthermore, it has been theorized that there may be a dose range where beneficial effects are experienced. (There is precedence for this "hormesis" effect from over one hundred years of chemical toxicology research.)
Despite the arguments on either side, LNT has lived on. It has been used to set radiation dose limits in energy, environment, and healthcare regulation. Meanwhile, voluminous hard data has been accumulating that points to one thing: radiation hormesis is a real possibility. If radiation hormesis theory is true (current evidence is consistent and convincing), then holding on to LNT as the basis for radiation exposure regulation would represent a colossal waste of public funding resources.
For more information, please visit Radiation, Science, & Health.
| Next article: Wind in Ontario |
