= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MichaelGR comments on Even if you have a nail, not all hammers are the same - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (125)
They do the same kind of thing with ionizing radiation: a lot of organizations assume that the health effects of radiation are completely linear, even far below the range where we've been able to measure, despite the lack of evidence for this (and some evidence suggesting a J-shaped curve). Other organizations refuse to extrapolate to extremely low doses, citing the lack of evidence.
The issue is just way too politicized.
I've just read a book by Gwyneth Cravens that talks about this and explains it well:
http://www.amazon.com/Power-Save-World-Nuclear-Energy/dp/B002KAOSLK/
(It's also about Uranium mining, how nuclear power plants work, how risk is mitigated, nuclear waste storage, etc. A good read.)