
Fear of radiation can be irrational - sergeant3
http://mosaicscience.com/story/your-fear-radiation-irrational
======
paulsutter
Fear of radiation is irrational. Fear of dangerous levels of radiation is
wise.

Since the general population has no idea what levels are safe, the media is
free to stir up catchy stories about anything radiation related. You can't
expect the media to report responsibly, they're just regular folks incented to
build audience.

Society could make more rational decisions if this were solved. Responsible
reporting might compare newsy radiation to ordinary events ("about as much
radiation exposure as a flight from NY to LA" or "twice the ordinary
background radiation levels for New York City").

But how could you incent the media to report usefully? Laws? I'm stumped. If
they don't feel inclined, it won't happen.

~~~
dfox
One of big problems with comparing radiation exposure is that there is no
quantity that can be both accurately measured and at the same time
meaningfully quantifies biological effects.

One of projects that I consult on involves sorting of gravel from inactive
uranium mines. On site the difference between "safe gravel for construction"
and "radioactive waste" (which was found out to be viable as precursor for
nuclear fuel) is mostly insignificant, but easily detectable. In my house this
difference is swamped by natural background radiation (see "Living in a brick,
stone..." in the XKCD chart, the sorting site is open-air installation).

Edit: Somehow I think that the real danger of radiation comes from radioactive
stuff that can be aspirated or ingested, not from "some well-localized thing
that is radioactive" and thus any kind of "fear of radiation" is mostly
irrational (given that one does not go near radiation sources unnecessarily).
Otherwise it's poison as any other (and most radioactive isotopes with long
half-life are primarily chemically poisonous with the radiation hazard being
mostly insignificant).

~~~
hn9780470248775
The referenced XKCD chart:
[http://xkcd.com/radiation/](http://xkcd.com/radiation/)

------
manarth
The amount of bad science in the article is incredible.

The idea that "small amounts of radiation do little/no measurable harm" is
neither new nor unknown. This does not mean that exposure to low levels of
radiation is beneficial. That argument is on a par with homeopathy.

Yes, there's a long-running argument that a nuclear power industry causes less
damage to health than the traditional fossil-fuel alternatives. Again, nothing
new.

But on to the radon tunnels: "I spent my 30 radon-breathing minutes had room
for 20 or so people who had signed on for its protective value or its alleged
benefit".

"The doctor in charge on the day of my visit…told me of clinical trials" \- so
far, so good. "of surveys testifying to the popularity of the treatment" \- uh
oh. "of patients who are able to cut down on or even abandon the drug
therapies they would otherwise have been using" \- hmm. "How much of this
evidence would rate as gold standard in quality, I have no idea" \- then
perhaps this is the time to investigate further, before reporting.

Clinical, peer-reviewed studies would go a long way to supporting the article.
But even though clinical studies are mentioned in the article, there's no link
to the supporting study.

Sure, homeopathy and all sorts of dodgy remedies have their advocates. But
until this is backed up by a published peer-reviewed clinical study, this
article belongs firmly in the camp of bad science.

~~~
jcl
FWIW, there is some research that shows that low levels of radiation may be
better than no radiation in certain situtations:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis#Studies_of_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis#Studies_of_low_level_radiation)

I agree that clinical trials would be better.

------
logfromblammo
It doesn't help that there are different varieties of radiation, with
different energy levels, and different ways to damage living tissue.

This is why grays/rads are different units from sieverts/rems.

For instance, iodine-131 is a beta emitter. Most low energy beta emitters
basically have zero health risk. Your internal organs are adequately shielded
from it by nothing more than your own skin. The danger in I-131 is that if you
are iodine-deficient, you will readily absorb the iodine into your body and
concentrate it in your thyroid. Once there, it can zap your thyroid with high-
energy electrons because it is sitting right there inside of it. This type of
radiation can be protected against by swallowing a pill of nonradioactive KI
prior to exposure.

Radon-222 is an alpha-emitter. Alphas are positively charged, so they too are
stopped by very light shielding. The greatest danger is from ionization and
scattering, like a high-energy cue ball hitting a triangle of billiard balls
which all plow through the back rail of the pool table. The greatest danger is
when the emitter is _inside_ your body, such as stuck to the alveoli in your
lungs--which is what would happen if you sat in a radon-rich spa for a while.

But in any case, the dose makes the poison, and if a radiation hormesis effect
exists, good luck to the people wanting to prove it. As for myself, I fear
radiation itself far less than both the human who fears it beyond what is
rational and the human who does not sufficiently respect its dangers.

------
bbrazil
I find that [https://xkcd.com/radiation/](https://xkcd.com/radiation/) always
helps put things in perspective.

~~~
tomkat0789
Working with the chart, to reach the lowest dose clearly linked to cancer
(100mSv) minus background radiation for a year (4 mSv, so to get 96 mSv), you
can find some silly permutations of that to get to 100mSv:

Spend a year in the Fukushima Exclusion zone (26mSv) plus 10 Chest CT scans

Spend a year in the Fukushima Exclusion zone, then take the max dose for a US
radiation worker and two chest CT scans.

The whole green area of the chart (75 mSv) plus taking a dose at the northwest
edge of the Fukushima exclusion zone puts you 19 mSv over the limit. So lay
off a couple of CT scans and visits to Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and
Fukushima and you'd be beneath the limit clearly linked to cancer.

Get 5000 chest X-Rays

250 mammograms

Eat a million bananas

This silly exercise at least convinces me to worry less about X-rays, plane
flights, and eating bananas. It would be nice if XKCD had the dose that takes
your cancer risk above certain thresholds like 1/million, 1/1000, 1/100, etc.
It would also be nice if the public calmed down about radiation.

~~~
sswezey
For the Chernobyl quote, it is nowhere near as high as that. That is standing
at the plant, but the closest you can get is a 1/4 mile away. And you only
stay there for about 15 minutes. Most of the time in the tour is exploring the
surrounding area and Pripyat.

When Ukraine stabilizes more, I would highly recommend a trip to the Chernobyl
Exclusion Zone, it is a really cool experience.

------
ChuckMcM
It isn't irrational, it is _emotional_. The difference being that people have
a harder time reasoning about their emotions than they do about facts (or even
the facts that lead to the emotions).

I've had similar conversations with people about radiation, I've pointed them
to the excellent radiation chart, and I've gone over papers and articles and
data galore. But if they are afraid, they are afraid. And deciding not to be
afraid is often challenging. It is no different than people who are afraid of
germs and are incessantly cleaning their living spaces or sanitizing their
dishes in an autoclave. They know germs can kill them, they know they can't
see or feel or taste germs they might be ingesting or coming into contact
with, so they spend all sorts of time and energy on eliminating germs.

Is it irrational? No, not in the strict sense, germs really can kill them. Is
it emotional? Absolutely there is a very real fear response there. Is it
proportional to the threat? No, and that is where folks need to have a
discussion in terms of proportion rather than real / not-real or threat / not-
threat.

~~~
athenot
It is very similar to the emotions stirred up by a plane crash vs. the ongoing
car accidents. I believe in both cases it comes down to not feeling in
control.

As a population, we over-estimate our ability to safely drive cars. Yet
because we are in control, we FEEL safer than being in a plane where, should
anything go wrong, we'd be totally powerless as we descend to our doom.

Most of us have a general grasp on how a fire is put out, or how a dam is
repaired, or how an oil well is fixed. But this invisible thing called
radiation, which is used in the most powerful bombs ever made and which
appears to be near incontrollable because it deals with the very structure of
matter, this radiation ends up associated with a very powerful fear.

------
alextgordon
Radon is not (ionising) radiation, it's a radioactive substance!

Fear of radiation is indeed irrational, because the radiation most likely to
give you cancer is sunlight!

Fear of radioactive substances is very rational. The danger of radioactive
material is that it can be _consumed_ , and so bypasses the protection of the
only organ that has actually evolved substantial defence against ionising
radiation (your skin). As it hangs around for an indeterminate amount of time
you have little way of knowing how much radiation you have absorbed.

------
beloch
One thing that probably confuses many is the mechanism by which ionizing
radiation causes cancer. A lot of non-ionizing radiation, such as visible
light, wifi, radio, or infrared, will only excite the molecules in your body,
causing an increase in heat. Obviously, too much heat is bad for you, but it
won't cause cancer. It will just cook you like meat in a microwave oven.

Ionizing radiation, on the other hand, has a small chance of popping an atom
out of a molecule in your body. It's the energy of single particles that
matters, not the number of them (although you can certainly be cooked alive by
enough ionizing radiation). If an atom is popped out of the right molecule
(i.e. the DNA stored in one of your cells) in exactly the right place (e.g.
the portions that suppress out-of-control replication) then you can get
cancer. That mistake in your DNA might be repaired or the cell might simply
die. It might be fine for a while, but that one mistake could lead to
compounding errors in future cell divisions, eventually leading to cancer.

There are many forms of cancer, but their severity is not a function of how
much radiation a person has been exposed to. Someone with a lot of exposure to
man-made radiation sources might get a slow growing tumor in a non-vital area
while a person who spent his life a thousand kilometers from civilization
could get an aggressively spreading form of cancer in an inoperable area.

So, can light exposure to radiation be therapeutic? Probably not. If there are
benefits to the treatments at Radhausberg, they are likely either due to some
other factor or the placebo effect. The radiation is at a mostly harmless
level for visitors, but it's not impossible that this could be the place where
you get cancer. I'd be more concerned for the staff who are exposed year-
round. The exposure received by nuclear plant workers is meticulously
monitored and is likely far lower than what the workers at Radhausberg are
receiving. 1 mSv is in the range of a medical diagnostic test, but multiply
that by 2-3 hundred per year for several years and you get a pretty big dose.

Perhaps the most ironic thing related to this story is the fact that
background radiation exposure for typical Germans has probably increased
significantly in the last few years. Germany's main source of electricity is
coal power, and they're relying on it more heavily than before now that
they've shut down their nuclear reactors. For power plants of the same
capacity, radioactive emissions are typically two orders of magnitude higher
for coal power plants than for nuclear power plants.

~~~
Balgair
Minor point: The way that these high energy particles 'pop' out an atom is by
ionizing it. Essentially, it interacts with the electron, raising the energy
of the electron, and allows for transitions to previously too energetic states
of the molecule. This may pop the atom out and rejigger the molecule, or it
may just allow for a rejiggering of the molecule and not allow it back.
Essentially it can break or kink the DNA very badly. There are many modes of
cancer formation and progression, and ionizing radiation is but one that
itself has many modes besides genetic damage as well.

------
digikata
Most discussions about radiation safety seem to concentrate on being exposed
to emissive radiation sources. In small doses and in exceptional situations
where you walk away from the source, it does indeed seem low risk.

I'm no expert, but I've seen much less discussion and safety study about
radiation exposure via intake and biological binding. The pathway of concern
there would where dust or other particles of a radioactive substance are
spread in an environment, then concentrated via natural means: erosion or
biological (e.g. predators taking in prey); then exposed to humans. In that
context, even a small amount of bound material may be continuously emitting
where one is always getting a dose.

We actually take advantage of this pathway for short-lived isotopes for
medical procedures, but obviously longer lived isotopes are more dangerous.
Most safety in radiation discussions seem to measure the emissive strength,
and declare things safe while ignoring the accumulation side of things. I
think it's actually a much more difficult risk to characterize and to perform
experiment with for obvious reasons..

------
Animats
It's not external exposure that's the big problem. You have to be near a big
gamma source for that to be a problem. It's ingesting or breathing alpha and
beta emitters. Especially in forms that are retained by the body, such as
strontium-90. Or worse, concentrated by plants and animals used for food.

------
Htsthbjig
Well, fear is an emotion, is not rational.

On the contrary I believe it is very rational to fear radon. In Spain or
France it is normal for families in some places to have family wineries on
caves.

In those places if there was radon(coming from minerals associated to
granites) cancer was way higher than normal levels. You have to be careful to
ventilate those caves when they stay closed for some time.

My family had one of those. As there are lots of scientists in my family, we
were always careful, including using a geiger counter and controlling how much
time we played there as kids(it was a very fun place to play) but I had seen
pretty stupid people about it(neighbors, friends), their stupidity coming from
ignorance. And I had seen people getting ill from cancer and dying too.

It doesn't hurt to be careful.

------
nickbauman
Statistically, worldwide 48% of humans will face cancer. 20% cancer will be
their cause of death. Doing things like smoking cigarettes only increases risk
of cancer from this baseline upwards. The health risks of exposure to
radiation can be measured statistically as well, but there's still no way to
tell whether you yourself "will get cancer" from radiation exposure.

------
legulere
Can someone tell the designer of this website that thin fonts are not good for
legibility? You should only use them for headlines, etc.

------
anotherevan
For those of us born in the 60's through to the 80's, I think the cold war and
living under what sometimes felt like impending nuclear armageddon left a very
negative imprint on our psyches regarding radiation. Who remembers duck and
cover?

------
tranquilzen
> [..about Fukushima..] "Radiation exposure may have shortened the lives of
> some of those directly involved, but its effects are likely to be so small
> that we may never know for sure whether they are related to the accident or
> not."

I think this author has not realized (nor been informed) what an unmitigated
disaster Fukushima really is. The media is downplaying its effects, and so is
the author of this article.

How about listening to Helen Caldicott who is an MD and pediatrician, and
deeply knowledgeable about the scientific and real-world effects of radiation
exposure. Listen to her talk about the children of Fukushima and other places
where people have been subjected to radiation. I think our fear of radiation
may not be irrational at all.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qX-
YU4nq-g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qX-YU4nq-g)

~~~
ef4
Not very convincing. In the first two minutes, she has already committed the
fallacy of touting a change in relative risk while glossing over the fact that
it is tiny in absolute terms.

She says -- correctly -- that a CT scan during pregnancy doubles the risk of
leukemia. But another way to say the same thing is that it increases the
lifetime risk from 0.0005% to 0.0011%. Compared with all of the other
acceptable risks we choose to take every day, it is very far down the list of
things that are worth worrying about.

And yet she chose to lead off with that particular fact. Which is proof to me
that she's not actually sticking to the hard science, and more interested in
telling scary stories.

~~~
digikata
If you can get the the same diagnosis without a CT, then wouldn't it be better
to skip the known risk in the first place?

~~~
ef4
Of course, just like if you could avoid ever driving in a car it would be
better to skip that known -- and much bigger -- risk. Practical limitations
apply.

------
elektromekatron
_The doctor in charge on the day of my visit was Simon Gütl. He told me of
clinical trials, of surveys testifying to the popularity of the treatment, and
of patients who are able to cut down on or even abandon the drug therapies
they would otherwise have been using. How much of this evidence would rate as
gold standard in quality, I have no idea – but I was struck by the enthusiasm
with which some people seek out the same force of nature that most others
think we have to avoid at any cost. One of my fellow transient troglodytes was
on her 70th visit._

Considering the headline, I was hoping for a bit better than this.

edited to add - I found their website -
[http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http:/...](http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.gasteiner-
heilstollen.com/de/unser-aerzteteam.html&prev=search) \- it has not improved
my opinion.

------
cwp
Wow. A clear violation of Betteridge's Law.

Yes, most people have an irrational fear of radiation. I've run into the
Fukushima thing myself. People think of it as a horrible _disaster_ , and when
I point out that the death toll is actually zero, they don't believe me.

