If something causes an additional very low statisitical risk of death to a high enough number of people, then some of them will die because of this.
Unless, of course, that doesn't actually happen to be the case.
In other replies in this thread I pointed out the basic argument why most scientists believe that even very low doses of radiation cause a small risk of cancer and also gave a link to recent review which summarized the discussion and a study which shows an effect for patients which had CT scans. Giving you the right pointers to learn the facts is all I can do. Discussing this further is a waste of time.
I see your point, but I do not agree to the idea that society, by tolerating fatalities from traffic accidents, has accepted a universal trade-off between risk of death and cost. (There are many problems with this idea: how would you quantify the total value of mobility? Also society is not one single entity but consits of many different people with different interests. Cost and risks are also not equally distributed, e.g.. why should society trade a cost to GM with a risk of death to others?). But this is also irrelevant to the original question: The natural background radiation is nothing society has voluntarily accepted.
You are equating "very low risk" with "safe". This is OK in personal life but not if you talking about a large number of affected people. If something causes an additional very low statisitical risk of death to a high enough number of people, then some of them will die because of this. And this needs to be considered. That there are other risks which are higher is irrelevant and no justification to simply ignore this.
And yes, nuclear proliferation is also a concern, although I do not really understand why you brought that up here.
The other deaths are simply irrelevant to this consideration.
No, they indicate that society accepts a certain level of harm from automobiles. The "minor cost savings" is capped from above before it is just not worth doing.
The overall harm society accepts for mobility is unrelated to the question whether a couple of lifes are worth the cost of an improved ignitation key.
Pearce et al., Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study, The Lancet 2012;380:499-505
First sentence of the discussion section: "In this retrospective cohort study, we show significant associations between the estimated radiation doses provided by CT scans to red bone marrow and brain and subsequent incidence of leukaemia and brain tumours."
This is a fallacy. The threshold should be set on the estimated benefits of a higher threshold vs the estimated harm from the additional radiation. The background radiation has nothing to with it.
I agree. But a high natural background radiation indicates that the estimated harm is likely very overstated.
No, you didn't get it. I will try with a car analogy: There are about 30000 fatal accidents with motor cycles per year in the US. This does not mean that the harm (16 deaths total or so) from GM's ignition key issue was overstated. The harm was huge relative to the minor cost savings. The other deaths are simply irrelevant to this consideration.
I have no opinion about the threshold, but there are two things to correct in your post:
it is the common view of medical and general science during the century-odd that we have discovered and been able to document radiation and its effects... that no amount is "generally recognized as safe" and standards need to be tightened.
What makes your "common view" any more valid than any other "common view"? Especially given that "generally recognized as safe" is a completely non-scientific quantity. In the end, you need evidence to back up such assertions not alleged consensus of vague groups of people.
He is absolutely right though. It is the common view of the scientific community that no amount of ionizing radiation is safe. This is also the basis of all radiation protection regulation everywhere (ALARA principle). The reason is simple: Ionizing radiation creates DNA damage with a small probability which then causes cancer with a small probability (which has then a certain probability of killing you). So even a single particle has a very small probability of causing cancer. There is a minority of people that believe that there are other effects (e.g. radiation at low doses activates the immune system) which dominate at low doses, but this is a minority view point and the data we have does not support this. From atomic bomb survivors see a linear correspondence between dose and risk down to about 50 mSv. For example, from this it was predictated that CT scans cause cancer with a very low probability and this has recently been confirmed.
so a comprehensive review based on science would move the decimal point to the left, at least to.025 mS/year, and perhaps.0025 mS.
Background levels are around 1 mS/year. So why advocate thresholds more than two orders of magnitude lower than what people normally get in a year? I just don't think science has much to do with your choice of thresholds.
This is a fallacy. The threshold should be set on the estimated benefits of a higher threshold vs the estimated harm from the additional radiation. The background radiation has nothing to with it.
Good point. This is an effect which can happen in certain circumstances. But Germany grew its economy with stable energy consumption for decades. So obviously this did not happen in the past. It also depends on energy policy, so it can be actively avoided.
A carbon tax does not affect every business equally.
But it will generally affect competitors equally. Two different taxi companies, or two different electricity generating companies that use coal. Or two different hotels of the same class and size in the same city.
And since competing businesses tend to have to lower prices in order to remain competitive in the same market as they pursue the same prospective customer, the tax burden is going to raise costs (and lower margins) more or less the same for both (or several) parties.
An electricity generating company investing in renewables might have a competitive advantage relative to its competitor. Ofcourse, if both invest in renewables there is no relative advantage anymore. But this does not mean that the tax had no effect in this case - quite the opposite!
Energy use in highly-developed countries such as Germany or United States has been more or less stable for the last decades with a slight downwards trend. This is expected to continue.
How do you recommend governments act to reduce carbon emissions?
If I were the government, I would do it by mandated carbon emission levels per watt of power generated by power companies. The idea is similar to the way that fuel efficiency standards were mandated for automobiles and led to vastly more fuel efficient cars.
This is something that a government can mandate, because the technology is here, and power plants can already make a profit from a mix of renewables (solar/hydro/wind/etc), it just isn't as profitable in the short term as coal because renewables tend to have a longer ROI period than fossil fuels. But if the government mandates the mix the power supplier must have, then the power companies will have to comply. The power companies will still make sufficient profit in the long term.
I am a firm believer in climate change, but I think a tax designed to reduce power consumption is wrong-headed. The progress of civilization is related to the power usage of that civilization. Individuals in first world countries now use more power in a day than people 1000 years ago would use in several months. In the future to continue to progress, our civilization will use more power.
It is usually expected that highly-developed countries will use less power in the future, because of more efficient technology.
Nonsense Radiation from CT is a serious concern. A single abdominal or chest CT corresponds to a dose of 5-10 mSv. The is especially a concern for children and in case of repeated scans. For example, see:
http://www.ajronline.org/doi/a... "In the United States, of approximately 600,000 abdominal and head CT examinations annually performed in children under the age of 15 years, a rough estimate is that 500 of these individuals might ultimately die from cancer attributable to the CT radiation."
Considering the state of the technology today, I agree that renewables cannot provide all of the demand today. But nuclear only provides baseload and so does not help.
Yes, also forcasts for nuclear have usually been very optimistic. The main cost of nuclear is the cost of construction which often went up a lot in actual projects. But even considering this it is not competitive with gas, wind, and hydro.
. But the most important problem with nuclear is that is simple cannot compete economically and is therefor a waste of resources.
Germany has spent over 100 billion euro on solar subsidies.
Creating a dramatic drop in prices. You have to compare it to what has been spent on nuclear so far.
For that, they have an annual solar electrical production approximately equivalent to no more than 3 average size reactors. Those same subsidies could have built over 20 nuclear units.
The subsidies are meant to create a market which will then make solar (and other renewables) more efficient. This was very successful so far. Much more has been spent in nuclear in the past and it is still not competitive.
That is actually not true in Germany. CO2 production was stable. Also, don't you think we would produce a lot more CO2 if Germany had scaled up coal instead of renewables to replace nuclear? In the near future when renewables replace coal instead of nuclear, CO2 will obviously come down.
The subsidies for fossil fuels by first-world western nations (and China) (those in a position to fund green energy technologies) are a small percentage of the total. Most fossil fuel subsidies are done by oil producing nations as a form of population pacification. The idea that these funds are available for redirection is ludicrous.
Sure, but that's only half the problem. The other half is the idea that throwing money at renewables will actually reduce CO2 production.
Energy prices on the market have been declining while end-user price have been increasing, but only a small part of this is from the feed-in-tarif fee. So high energy prices are clearly not caused by abandonment of nuclear (otherwise the market price would be up but it is not). While renewables are demanding to the grid and require some investment, grid stability issues are a myth: Germany has one of the most stable grids in Europe and this did not change in recent years with a downtime as measured by the SAIDI index of about 15-20 minutes per year, much better than France with 60 or the US which > 100). Nuclear waste is a bit of a problem, and there is not a single country which would already have a real long-term solution to this problem. But the most important problem with nuclear is that is simple cannot compete economically and is therefor a waste of resources.
And this is about actual costs with mature technology, not even about some hypothetical future closed nuclear cycle, which - pardon the pun - is vaporware.
Why would you think this? To me it seems that an energy mix consisting of renewables and some saving by the use of more efficient technlogies could easily solve all our energy problems. And I seriously don't see how space is a problem. Nuclear could in theory, but only at a much higher cost.
I am always surprised about people promoting nuclear. Nuclear is hopelessly un-economocal, which means that investing in it even as a stopgap measure is a waste of resources. Even today, conventional power plants are not usually build without large subsidies. But conventional nuclear power plants are no solution to our energy problems. Only with breeder reactors is it possible to scale up nuclear to provide a significant part of the world's energy needs. And breeder reactors are even more expensive and costly...
Slashdot Mirror
If something causes an additional very low statisitical risk of death to a high enough number of people, then some of them will die because of this.
Unless, of course, that doesn't actually happen to be the case.
In other replies in this thread I pointed out the basic argument why most scientists believe that even very low doses of radiation cause a small risk of cancer and also gave a link to recent review which summarized the discussion and a study which shows an effect for patients which had CT scans. Giving you the right pointers to learn the facts is all I can do. Discussing this further is a waste of time.
I see your point, but I do not agree to the idea that society, by tolerating fatalities from traffic accidents, has accepted a universal trade-off between risk of death and cost. (There are many problems with this idea: how would you quantify the total value of mobility? Also society is not one single entity but consits of many different people with different interests. Cost and risks are also not equally distributed, e.g.. why should society trade a cost to GM with a risk of death to others?). But this is also irrelevant to the original question: The natural background radiation is nothing society has voluntarily accepted.
You are equating "very low risk" with "safe". This is OK in personal life but not if you talking about a large number of affected people. If something causes an additional very low statisitical risk of death to a high enough number of people, then some of them will die because of this. And this needs to be considered. That there are other risks which are higher is irrelevant and no justification to simply ignore this.
And yes, nuclear proliferation is also a concern, although I do not really understand why you brought that up here.
The other deaths are simply irrelevant to this consideration.
No, they indicate that society accepts a certain level of harm from automobiles. The "minor cost savings" is capped from above before it is just not worth doing.
The overall harm society accepts for mobility is unrelated to the question whether a couple of lifes are worth the cost of an improved ignitation key.
Pearce et al., Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study, The Lancet 2012;380:499-505
First sentence of the discussion section: "In this retrospective cohort study, we show significant associations between the estimated radiation doses provided by CT scans to red bone marrow and brain and subsequent incidence of leukaemia and brain tumours."
It is the common view of the scientific community that no amount of ionizing radiation is safe.
That is incorrect. It is one of several common views. Argument from consensus is not scientific, especially when the consensus doesn't actually exist.
Here is a relative new review: http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr/...
This is a fallacy. The threshold should be set on the estimated benefits of a higher threshold vs the estimated harm from the additional radiation. The background radiation has nothing to with it.
I agree. But a high natural background radiation indicates that the estimated harm is likely very overstated.
No, you didn't get it. I will try with a car analogy: There are about 30000 fatal accidents with motor cycles per year in the US. This does not mean that the harm (16 deaths total or so) from GM's ignition key issue was overstated. The harm was huge relative to the minor cost savings. The other deaths are simply irrelevant to this consideration.
I have no opinion about the threshold, but there are two things to correct in your post:
it is the common view of medical and general science during the century-odd that we have discovered and been able to document radiation and its effects... that no amount is "generally recognized as safe" and standards need to be tightened.
What makes your "common view" any more valid than any other "common view"? Especially given that "generally recognized as safe" is a completely non-scientific quantity. In the end, you need evidence to back up such assertions not alleged consensus of vague groups of people.
He is absolutely right though. It is the common view of the scientific community that no amount of ionizing radiation is safe. This is also the basis of all radiation protection regulation everywhere (ALARA principle). The reason is simple: Ionizing radiation creates DNA damage with a small probability which then causes cancer with a small probability (which has then a certain probability of killing you). So even a single particle has a very small probability of causing cancer. There is a minority of people that believe that there are other effects (e.g. radiation at low doses activates the immune system) which dominate at low doses, but this is a minority view point and the data we have does not support this. From atomic bomb survivors see a linear correspondence between dose and risk down to about 50 mSv. For example, from this it was predictated that CT scans cause cancer with a very low probability and this has recently been confirmed.
so a comprehensive review based on science would move the decimal point to the left, at least to .025 mS/year, and perhaps .0025 mS.
Background levels are around 1 mS/year. So why advocate thresholds more than two orders of magnitude lower than what people normally get in a year? I just don't think science has much to do with your choice of thresholds.
This is a fallacy. The threshold should be set on the estimated benefits of a higher threshold vs the estimated harm from the additional radiation. The background radiation has nothing to with it.
It is usually expected that highly-developed countries will use less power in the future, because of more efficient technology.
O rly. I'll just leave this here: Jevons paradox.
Good point. This is an effect which can happen in certain circumstances. But Germany grew its economy with stable energy consumption for decades. So obviously this did not happen in the past. It also depends on energy policy, so it can be actively avoided.
Yes, that's because we've sent all of our "polluting" (note: carbon dioxide isn't pollution) industries to China, along with a lot of jobs and wealth.
That seems to be a common idea here in the US. Do you have some actual numbers?
Comment is mine. Forgot to log in.
A carbon tax does not affect every business equally.
But it will generally affect competitors equally. Two different taxi companies, or two different electricity generating companies that use coal. Or two different hotels of the same class and size in the same city.
And since competing businesses tend to have to lower prices in order to remain competitive in the same market as they pursue the same prospective customer, the tax burden is going to raise costs (and lower margins) more or less the same for both (or several) parties.
An electricity generating company investing in renewables might have a competitive advantage relative to its competitor. Ofcourse, if both invest in renewables there is no relative advantage anymore. But this does not mean that the tax had no effect in this case - quite the opposite!
Energy use in highly-developed countries such as Germany or United States has been more or less stable for the last decades with a slight downwards trend. This is expected to continue.
How do you recommend governments act to reduce carbon emissions?
If I were the government, I would do it by mandated carbon emission levels per watt of power generated by power companies. The idea is similar to the way that fuel efficiency standards were mandated for automobiles and led to vastly more fuel efficient cars.
This is something that a government can mandate, because the technology is here, and power plants can already make a profit from a mix of renewables (solar/hydro/wind/etc), it just isn't as profitable in the short term as coal because renewables tend to have a longer ROI period than fossil fuels. But if the government mandates the mix the power supplier must have, then the power companies will have to comply. The power companies will still make sufficient profit in the long term.
I am a firm believer in climate change, but I think a tax designed to reduce power consumption is wrong-headed. The progress of civilization is related to the power usage of that civilization. Individuals in first world countries now use more power in a day than people 1000 years ago would use in several months. In the future to continue to progress, our civilization will use more power.
It is usually expected that highly-developed countries will use less power in the future, because of more efficient technology.
A carbon tax does not affect every business equally.
Nonsense Radiation from CT is a serious concern. A single abdominal or chest CT corresponds to a dose of 5-10 mSv. The is especially a concern for children and in case of repeated scans. For example, see:
http://www.ajronline.org/doi/a...
"In the United States, of approximately 600,000 abdominal and head CT examinations annually performed in children under the age of 15 years, a rough estimate is that 500 of these individuals might ultimately die from cancer attributable to the CT radiation."
Well, one could argue that the bureaucracy is required for safety.
Considering the state of the technology today, I agree that renewables cannot provide all of the demand today. But nuclear only provides baseload and so does not help.
Yes, also forcasts for nuclear have usually been very optimistic. The main cost of nuclear is the cost of construction which often went up a lot in actual projects. But even considering this it is not competitive with gas, wind, and hydro.
. But the most important problem with nuclear is that is simple cannot compete economically and is therefor a waste of resources.
Germany has spent over 100 billion euro on solar subsidies.
Creating a dramatic drop in prices. You have to compare it to what has been spent on nuclear so far.
For that, they have an annual solar electrical production approximately equivalent to no more than 3 average size reactors.
Those same subsidies could have built over 20 nuclear units.
The subsidies are meant to create a market which will then make solar (and other renewables) more efficient. This was very successful so far. Much more has been spent in nuclear in the past and it is still not competitive.
That is actually not true in Germany. CO2 production was stable. Also, don't you think we would produce a lot more CO2 if Germany had scaled up coal instead of renewables to replace nuclear? In the near future when renewables replace coal instead of nuclear, CO2 will obviously come down.
Sure, but that's only half the problem. The other half is the idea that throwing money at renewables will actually reduce CO2 production.
Huh, what makes you think it does not?
Energy prices on the market have been declining while end-user price have been increasing, but only a small part of this is from the feed-in-tarif fee. So high energy prices are clearly not caused by abandonment of nuclear (otherwise the market price would be up but it is not). While renewables are demanding to the grid and require some investment, grid stability issues are a myth: Germany has one of the most stable grids in Europe and this did not change in recent years with a downtime as measured by the SAIDI index of about 15-20 minutes per year, much better than France with 60 or the US which > 100). Nuclear waste is a bit of a problem, and there is not a single country which would already have a real long-term solution to this problem. But the most important problem with nuclear is that is simple cannot compete economically and is therefor a waste of resources.
For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Google for "levelized cost of energy sources"
And this is about actual costs with mature technology, not even about some hypothetical future closed nuclear cycle, which - pardon the pun - is vaporware.
Why would you think this? To me it seems that an energy mix consisting of renewables and some saving by the use of more efficient technlogies could easily solve all our energy problems. And I seriously don't see how space is a problem. Nuclear could in theory, but only at a much higher cost.
I am always surprised about people promoting nuclear. Nuclear is hopelessly un-economocal, which means that investing in it even as a stopgap measure is a waste of resources. Even today, conventional power plants are not usually build without large subsidies. But conventional nuclear power plants are no solution to our energy problems. Only with breeder reactors is it possible to scale up nuclear to provide a significant part of the world's energy needs. And breeder reactors are even more expensive and costly...