Low-Level Radiation Risks

[QuarkingMad]

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has just released their May/June issue which has a special section on Low Level Radiation Risks. They have announced it is free to access for the next two weeks only.

There are 8 articles from different perspectives on the risks of low level radiation and regulation.

Link: bos.sagepub.com/content/current

[Barry Brook]

Thanks for this DangerAus, but a warning, I've found BAS to be rather biased in previous articles.

Somewhat tangentially, I recently bought a Geiger counter. Background level in my room was 0.085 μSv/hr, and at my computer it is 0.12 μSv/hr.

I then took it to a sample of pitchblende in the geology museum next to my office (the sample was behind glass in a cabinet, so the alphas and betas were blocked), and still got a reading of 5.2 μSv/hr! (that is higher than much of the Fukushima exclusion zone – even when behind glass: bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/fuku_zone.png).

So, even when I'm innocently doing my work, I'm being bombarded by low-level radiation. Am I worried about the risks? Err... no.

[anonposter]

Uranium does tend to read high on Geiger counters which haven't been energy compensated (probably what you've got).

See depletedcranium.com/if-uranium-is-not-so-radioactive-why-does-it-peg-a-geiger-counter/ for the details.

[Barry Brook]

This is the model I have: Mazur PRM-8000
www.mazurinstruments.com/specs

It doesn't say if it's been energy compensated. But given that of the models listed here www.geigercounters.com/Pocket.htm only the Monitor 4EC mentions that it is energy compensated, I suspect that my model is not.

In a way that's okay, as it makes for a more spectacular demonstration

I also have a scintillation detector at work.

[QuarkingMad]

May 2, 2012 12:28:46 GMT 9.5 Barry Brook said:

Thanks for this DangerAus, but a warning, I've found BAS to be rather biased in previous articles.

<Snip>

For sure. I've done a brief skim over these documents and it is more of a "where the debate is at" rather than answering any specific questions. It's good as a snapshot of the current scientific debate around low-level doses that can lead onto other sources.

[Luke Weston]

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists used to be really good over the last few decades or so, with scientifically literate, scientifically informed analysis (coming from people like Bethe, for example) in support of realistic arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, missile defense and all the rest of it.

But over the last few years it seems to have gone downhill a lot, and all too often it seems to publish anti-nuclear-power rhetoric from people with no real scientific background, trashing nuclear power with the same old scientifically weak rhetoric.

[QuarkingMad]

May 2, 2012 14:15:03 GMT 9.5 Luke Weston said:

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists used to be really good over the last few decades or so, with scientifically literate, scientifically informed analysis (coming from people like Bethe, for example) in support of realistic arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, missile defense and all the rest of it.

But over the last few years it seems to have gone downhill a lot, and all too often it seems to publish anti-nuclear-power rhetoric from people with no real scientific background, trashing nuclear power with the same old scientifically weak rhetoric.

From what I've read so far it isn't anti-nuclear rhetoric.

They look at all facets from interpretation of the data, limitations of that, and risk perceptions. They have authors that are scientists in the nuclear field who deal with policy application of radiation risk, sociologists looking at risk perceptions in society, Radiobiologists and Biostatisians looking at the epidemiologic data. They aren't shy to the limitations and the counter debates. It's a rather pragmatic piece.

[David B. Benson]

New Look at Prolonged Radiation Exposure: At Low Dose-Rate, Radiation Poses Little Risk to DNA, Study Suggests:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120515181256.htm
A report of another study which agrees with the quite differently done research at LBNL. This study, according to the report, found no genetic damage. That is a surprisingly strong statement when applying 400x background for five weeks.