Is low-level radiation more potent than high-level radiation?

Should the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of low-level radiation be set at greater than 1?

If so, then EPA will set even more stringent exposure standards for, say, public exposure to nuclear power plants.

But check out this presentation from Oak Ridge National Lab’s Keith Eckerman.

Slide 19 states:

Experimental and theoretical support for low energy electron RBE > 1

No evidence can be drawn from human epidemiological studies

Both theoretical approaches support use of an RBE > 1

Publications of ORNL work in progress [Emphasis added]

As real-life exposures have failed to provide evidence that low-level radiation is more potent than high-level radiation, you can bet that EPA and the radiation scare community will go with the dubious “experimental and theoretical support.”

Click here more info on RBE from the Health Physics Society.

4 thoughts on “Is low-level radiation more potent than high-level radiation?”

  1. Everyone should read Lawrence Solomon on the subject of low level radiation. Seems it could be beneficial to humans. The anti radiation scare mongers cant have that so they will start spreading scare stories again. They are SO predictable.

  2. Also, the recent Lung Cancer Screening trials Suggest that CT scanning reduces the incidence of lung cancer. One group of patinets at high risk for lung cancer was screened with CT scanning. Another age and risk matched group was not screened. The group receiving CT scans developed fewer cancers than the group not receiving CT scans. All evidence for the effect of low level radition is nothing more than an extrapolation of data using Hisoshima and Nagasaki survivors who were exposed to very high doses. That is similar to saying that if falls from 40 feet result in death 95% of the time and falls from 20 feet result in death 25% of the time, then falls from 1 inch should result indeath 2% of the time.

  3. There is 50 years of low level radiation exposure data in the airline industry with no measurable damage to employees. Scaring people with data mining is the current trend. They just want to justify more studies to keep the money flowing their way.

  4. Here we go again – let’s substitute “feelings” for facts. The Linear No-Threshold scam raises it’s ugly head once again.

Comments are closed.