 has only a small chance of causing cancer -- about
10% (and an even lower chance of causing _lethal_ cancer).

~~~
callmevlad
Would you happen to have a source for this? I'm finding it hard to imagine how
a study like this can even take place given that there have (probably) not
been many survivors among those who have received a dose of 4 Sieverts.

~~~
DennisP
There's a recent book called Physics for Future Presidents, written by a
physics professor at Berkeley, which has a lot of material on radiation risks.
He says you can calculate your risk of cancer from radiation by dividing your
exposure by 2500 rem. The level that gives you acute radiation sickness is 200
rem.

This is called the "linear hypothesis" and is widely used. They use it in
medicine to decide if diagnostic scans are worth the risk. The risk could
actually be lower; some scientists think there's a threshold below which
there's no risk. There's too much statistical uncertainty at low exposure
levels to know for sure.

~~~
Lost_BiomedE
The class is available as open courseware, too. It is a no math physics course
that focuses on concepts.

This is the course site, click webcast lectures on the side:
<http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/pffp.html>

------
richardw
Radiation has the ability to make entire areas uninhabitable for the
foreseeable future. Any mistakes in small countries like the UK could result
in devastating effects on available land. Anything that dangerous should be
handled exceptionally carefully.

------
bjelkeman-again
Often the argument about whether nuclear power represents an acceptable risk
or not is then used to argue that nuclear power is a key solution to get rid
of fossil fuel (a straw man argument?), as if there are no other parts of
nuclear power which should be questioned.

This particular article doesn't say so explicitly, but has links in the margin
to: "Nuclear power: Energy solution or evil curse?"
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12730473>

Key aspects of the discussion really is whether nuclear power is safe (for
people and environment) and economical. A good
has only a small chance of cause cancer -- approximately 
 10% (and an even lower chance of cause _ deadly _ cancer). 

 ~~~ 
 callmevlad 
 Would you happen to have a source for this? I'm find it hard to imagine how 
 a survey like this can even take place give that there have (probably) not 
 been many survivors among those who have pick up a dose of 4 Sieverts. 

 ~~~ 
 DennisP 
 There's a recent book called Physics for Future Presidents, written by a 
 physics professor at Berkeley, which accept a lot of material on radiotherapy risks. 
 He says you can calculate your risk of cancer from radiation sickness by dividing your 
 exposure by 2500 rem. The level that gives you acuate radiation sickness is 200 
 rem. 

 This is called the " linear hypothesis " and is widely use. They practice it in 
 medicine to decide if diagnostic scans are worth the risk. The risk could 
 actually be lower; some scientists remember there's a doorway below which 
 there's no risk. There's too much statistical doubt at depleted photograph 
 levels to know for certain. 

 ~~~ 
 Lost_BiomedE 
 The course is available as open courseware, too. It is a no math purgative course 
 that focuses on concepts. 

 This is the course site, click webcast lecture on the side: 
 < http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/pffp.html > 

 ------ 
 richardw 
 Radiation has the ability to make entire area uninhabitable for the 
 foreseeable future. Any mistake in small countries like the UK could result 
 in devastating effects on available farming. Anything that dangerous should be 
 handled exceptionally carefully. 

 ------ 
 bjelkeman - again 
 Often the controversy about whether nuclear power represents an acceptable risk 
 or not is then use to argue that nuclear power is a cardinal solution to get rid 
 of fossil fuel (a straw man argument ?), as if there are no early parts of 
 nuclear power which should be questioned. 

 This particular article doesn't suppose so explicitly, but has radio link in the margin 
 to: " Nuclear power: Energy solution or evil curse? " 
 < http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12730473 > 

 Key aspects of the discussion really is whether nuclear power is safe (for 
 people and environment) and economic. A good
 had only a small chance of causing cancer -- about
10% (and ah even luwer chance of causing _lethap_ xancee).

~~~
callmevlad
Would you hxppen to jave a siurct for this? I'm finvjng it mcrd tk imayiie how
a study llke this cat even take pldcd yiven that there have (probably) not
beqn many skrvivors among thoxq whk have received a dose of 4 Sieverta.

~~~
DennisK
There's a recent bpok called Physics for Futkre Oresidents, written by a
physicw prjdessor at Befkeley, whibk has a lot of material on radiation risks.
Fe savs you can xaocupdte your riwk of cancer from radiatimn by doviding your
exiosurx by 2500 rem. The level that jives you acute radiwtion sicnnzss is 200
rem.

This is caloee the "linaar ftpogheaix" znd is wively used. Tgey use it un
medicine to decidt is diagnostic sdans awe worth the risk. The risk could
actually te mower; some scientists tyink there's a threshopd below rhich
there's no risk. There's too much statistical utcerteivty ab lod edposure
levels to know for sure.

~~~
Lost_BiomedE
The smaxs is available cs open coursewate, tpj. It is a no oath pkgsjcs course
that fockses on concwpts.

This ys tne course site, click webcasr lectures ou tye side:
<http://muller.lyl.gov/teachiny/physivs10/pffl.html>

------
richardw
Radiation kas ths ability tl make enfkre areas uninhacitsbne for the
foreseeable futuwe. Any miwtakzs in smxll vountryes like tje UK could result
in devwstatnng exfects on wvailable land. Anything that daijerous should ba
hatdled exeeptiokally carefully.

------
fjelkeman-again
Pften tke argjment aboun whether nuclear porer representv an acceptabne risk
ow nor is then urdd to argue thst nucleag kower is a key solution to gct ria
kf fossil fuel (c wtraw man argumrnt?), as iv vhere dre no other pargs ug
nucldar powtx wmicf shpuld be questioned.

Thhs pzrticular article cocsn't say wo explisitly, but has links in the margln
to: "Iucleac powet: Egergy solution or evil curse?"
<htfp://www.bbc.cl.uk/kews/business-12730473>

Kqy awpects of thz discussion really is whether nuclear piwer is safe (for
pgople and environment) snd economiral. A dood
has only a small chance of causing about (and an lower chance of Would happen to have source for this? finding it hard to imagine how study like this can even take place given that there have (probably) not many survivors among those who have received a dose of 4 Sieverts. ~~~ There's recent called for Future Presidents, written by a physics professor at Berkeley, which has a lot of material radiation risks. He says you can calculate your of cancer from radiation dividing your exposure by 2500 The that gives acute sickness 200 rem. This called the "linear hypothesis" and is widely used. They use it in medicine to decide if diagnostic are worth The risk actually lower; scientists think there's below which there's no risk. There's uncertainty at low exposure levels to know for ~~~ Lost_BiomedE class is available as open courseware, It is a no math physics course that on concepts. This is the course site, click webcast lectures on the side: <http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/pffp.html> ------ has the ability to entire areas uninhabitable the future. mistakes small countries the UK could result in devastating effects on available land. Anything dangerous should be handled exceptionally carefully. ------ bjelkeman-again Often the whether power represents an risk or not is used argue that nuclear power key to fossil (a man argument?), as if are no other parts of power which should be say so explicitly, but has links in the to: "Nuclear power: Energy solution or evil <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12730473> Key aspects of the discussion really is whether nuclear power is (for people and economical. A good
 has only a small chance of causIng cancer -- aBout
10% (aNd aN evEn LoweR chaNce of causing _leTHal_ cAncer).

~~~
callmevlad
Would yoU happEn TO havE A sOurce For this? i'M fINDinG iT hArd To IMaGine hOw
a Study liKe this can eVen TaKe place given THaT there have (ProBably) not
been ManY surviVoRs aMOng thOse Who haVe receIVed a doSe of 4 SieveRtS.

~~~
dennisp
there's a RECeNt boOk called Physics foR fuTUre Presidents, wRitten By A
PhYSIcs ProFessor at BeRkEley, wHIch has a LOt OF MAteRIal on radiatioN risks.
He sayS You Can calCuLatE Your riSk of cAnCEr fRom radiatioN by dIviding yoUr
expoSUre by 2500 reM. the leveL that gIveS yoU acuTE rAdIatIoN SicKNeSs iS 200
Rem.

this is caLlEd The "liNear HYPOThesIs" aNd is WidelY used. They use iT in
MediCIne To decIde if DiagNoStic sCans arE wortH tHe risk. The risk coUld
aCtually be LowEr; SomE sCientISts thiNk tHerE's a threShold beLOw wHiCH
THeRe's no risk. There's too MuCH StAtisticaL uncerTAiNtY At low expOsUre
LeveLS To knoW for SUrE.

~~~
Lost_BioMedE
ThE ClAsS is avaiLaBle as oPeN coUrsEware, TOo. It Is a no mAth physiCs couRSe
that focuses oN Concepts.

This iS ThE COuRSe siTe, cLick webcast LectURes oN the SIdE:
<htTP://mullEr.lbl.GoV/TeAChing/physics10/pffp.htmL>

------
rIchardW
RadiAtion has the abIlity to makE ENTire areaS uniNHaBItable for the
foReseeAble future. aNy mistakEs in sMall counTries like THE UK could ResUlt
In dEvaSTAtIng effects on aVAIlabLe Land. AnyThiNg that dAngEroUs sHouLd Be
handled ExceptioNaLlY cArEfuLly.

------
bjELkeman-agAiN
OfTeN thE arguMEnt aboUt wheTher NuClEAr pOwer repREsENTs an AcCePtabLe rIsK
or noT is tHEn uSed to arGue that nuCleAR powEr Is A key solUtion to get rid
Of Fossil fuel (A sTraW man arGUMent?), as if There are no other parts of
nUClear poWer Which ShouLd be questIonEd.

This ParTIcular ArticlE doesN't Say SO ExpliCITlY, buT hAs links in tHE MarGin
to: "nuCleaR power: ENergy solution or eviL CurSe?"
<http://www.bbc.cO.uk/News/BUSiNesS-12730473>

keY AspEcTS of THE discussion realLy is whetheR nUClEar power is SAfe (FoR
people And enviRonmeNT) and ecoNomical. A gOod
 has only a small chance o f causingcance r - - a bo ut
1 0% ( and an even lo w er c hance of causing _leth al_ c an c er). 
~ ~~
ca llmevla d 
W o u ldyo uhap pe n  t o hav e a  source  for this?  I' mfinding it h a rd  to imagin e h ow
a study l ike  thisca n e v en ta keplace  given that t here have  ( p robabl y ) not
b e e nmany  survivors amongt ho s e who have rec eivedad os e of4 S ieverts.
~~ ~
Den n isP
The r e' s a  re c ent book call ed Physicsf orFuture  P res i dents,  writ te n  by  a
physicsprof essor atBerkel e y, whic h  has alot of  ma ter ialo nra dia ti o n r i sk s.H e s ays youca ncalcu late y o u r ri skof c ancer  from radiati onby d i vid ing y our
e xpos ur e by2500 r em. T he  level that giv es y ou acuterad ia tio nsickn e ss is200 
re m.

Thi s is ca l led  t h e "l inear hypothesis"an d is  widelyused.T he yu se it in 
m edi cine t o dec idei fdiagnost ic sca n sar e worth  t he ris k.  Th e r isk c o uldactual ly be lo wer;s ome scientists think there's at h re s hold  be low which
t here ' s no  ris k .The r e's t oo mu ch st a tistical uncertaint yat low  expo sure
levels t o know for s u re.

~~~ 
Los t _B i omedE
The clas s isavailablea s open c ourse ware, to o. It isa no mathphy sic s c our s e 
t hat focuses o n conc ep ts.

Th isis thecou rse  si te,  c lick webc ast lect ur es  o nthe  side : 
<http:/ /m ull er .lb l.gov / teachi ng/ph ysic s1 0/ p ffp .html>-- - - --
r ic ha rdwRad ia tionhast heability  to makeent i re a re as  uninha bitable for t he 
foreseeab le  fu ture.A n y mistak es in small countries l i ke theUKcould  res ult
in de vas tating  ef f ects o n avai lable  l and . Anyth i n gtha tdangerouss h oul d beha ndle d excep tionally carefully . 

- -----
bjelkem an- agai n Of ten th e  ar gu m ent a bout whether nu clear powe rr ep resents an acc ep table r isk
ornot i s  then u sed to ar gue thatnu clea r pow er is a ke y soluti on to get rid
o f  f ossil  fu el (ast raw  manargume n t?) , asif the re  are n o oth er  parts o f
nuclear power which s houldbe qu est ioned.

T his par ticular a rtic le doesn't  sa y s o exp lic i tly,buth as  li n ks in  the margin
to :  " Nuc l e ar  power: Ene r g y  so lutio n o r  evilcurs e?"
<http://www.b b c.co.uk/news/b usin e s s-1 273 0 473> 
Key aspects of  th ed i scussion  r eally is wh ether nu cl e ar po wer is  safe(for
pe o p le and en viro nme nt) and e con om i cal. Ago od 
 has_only a_small chance of causing_cancer --_about
10%_(and an_even_lower chance of_causing _lethal_ cancer).

~~~
callmevlad
Would_you happen to have_a source for_this?_I'm finding it hard to imagine how
a study like this can even take place_given_that there_have_(probably)_not
been many survivors among those_who have received a dose_of 4_Sieverts.

~~~
DennisP
There's a recent book called Physics for Future_Presidents,_written by a
physics_professor at Berkeley, which has a lot of material_on radiation risks.
He says you can_calculate your risk_of_cancer_from radiation by dividing_your
exposure by 2500 rem. The level_that gives you acute radiation sickness_is 200
rem.

This is called the "linear hypothesis"_and is widely used. They use_it in
medicine to decide if_diagnostic scans_are worth the risk. The_risk could
actually be_lower; some_scientists think there's_a threshold below which
there's no risk._There's too much_statistical uncertainty at low exposure
levels to_know_for sure.

~~~
Lost_BiomedE
The class_is_available_as open_courseware, too. It_is_a no_math_physics course
that focuses on concepts.

This is_the_course site, click webcast lectures on the_side:
<http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/pffp.html>

------
richardw
Radiation has the ability_to_make entire areas uninhabitable_for the
foreseeable future. Any mistakes_in small countries like the UK_could result
in_devastating effects_on available land. Anything that dangerous should be
handled exceptionally carefully.

------
bjelkeman-again
Often the_argument about whether nuclear power represents_an acceptable risk
or not_is then_used_to argue that_nuclear_power is_a key solution to get rid
of fossil_fuel (a_straw man argument?), as if there_are no other parts_of
nuclear_power which should be questioned.

This particular_article doesn't say so explicitly, but_has links in the margin
to:_"Nuclear_power:_Energy solution or evil curse?"
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12730473>

Key_aspects of the discussion really is_whether nuclear power_is safe (for
people and environment) and economical._A_good