unlike some of the other risks to life listed,
ionizing radiation can cause genetic damage.
An impact that is passed on to future generations.
I propose that's a factor for the special place the nuclear industry has in so many hearts.
how's that nonsense?
That is a theoretical possibility, and a highly unlikely and unobserved possibility at that. Real life mutations aren't like in children's cartoons. Most of the genetic material in a multicellular organism do not belong to germ cells, and most mutations caused by ionizing radiation either cause death of the cell or no effect at all, especially in eukaryotic chromosomes. Cancer, highly unlikely itself, is many orders of magnitude more likely than any inheritable effect.
Studies of the Chernobyl disaster have not found evidence of teratogenic effects in humans [1], and neither have studies of survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings [2].
The malevolent-sounding yet meaningless phrase "fades your genes" is nothing short of nonsense, especially in reference to inheritable teratogenic effects. The number of special places in hearts can do nothing to alter that judgement.
Good thing no life forms are exposed to radiation such as UV, cosmic rays, or naturally-occuring radioactive elements such as Carbon-14, Potassium-40, or Uranium then, we'd be screwed after only a few generations! Oh, wait...
what's your point? people do get old and sick.
the fact that radiation exists naturally in the environment doesn't mean its good for you, and doesnt mean that more won't pose an increased health hazard
On the other hand, it does mean that we were evolved to at least be able to procreate in the presence of a constant radiation flux.
There's such a wide gulf in possible levels of radiation exposure that radiation health physicists are to this very day still unsure whether constant exposure to low levels of radiation is actually harmful at all. They haven't even been able to rule out that it's not beneficial.
But either way, if you're worried about exposure to radiation you should be more worried about coal plants than nuclear plants; coal plants emit so much radioactivity to the environment that their exhaust would generate more power in a nuke plant, if it could be harvested properly.
yes we can procreate in the presence of some radiation:
could you set a lower compliance bar for any pollutant?
beneficial impacts are pretty much fringe science.
FWIW, there has been experimental demonstration of minimal ionizing radiation causing mutation in a single cell.
and most regulatory standards around the world continue to reduce 'acceptable limits'. I think the most recent example is the reduction in exposure to radon exposure that has been recognised in a number of national standards. I read that as showing that people who understand the science more than myself are still, decades later, finding more cause for caution.
Radiation hormesis is not "fringe science". As only one example, consider http://www.jpands.org/vol13no3/cohen.pdf which is an overview from 2008 of some of the issues raised against the linear no-threshold dose model. You'll note that it was not published in some 'quack journal', and draws its references from many other non-quack entities.
In addition you're assuming that changes in regulatory setpoints are purely based on proven safety effects, but that's not the case here. Indeed, regulatory changes happen frequently that are not based on safety (e.g. yellow light timings).
What is true is that if you assume, as most health physics societies and regulatory organization do, that radiation exposure should be kept ALARA ("as low as reasonably achievable") then you should reduce regulatory thresholds for no better reason than that it becomes possible to do at all.
In other words even if you find a 'safe' level below which you can't appreciably detect an increase in cancer risk, you'd still set the regulatory threshold far below that if you could (and keep dropping it as technology improves), because regulatory commissions are operating under the assumption that any exposure to radiation represents some additional risk of later cancer.
But it's important to keep in mind that it is an assumption, a convenient and conservative model that is used for ease of regulation, work planning, etc.
That doesn't mean the model is accurate, and the actual biological response to radiation of different types and exposures continues to remain debated at low levels of exposure.
After all, if what you claim is true then frequent flyers, air crew, and pilots should be dying at a ponderously higher rate of cancer incidence, as should residents of high-altitude areas who are exposed to higher cosmic ray flux, as should residents of Ramsar Iran who are exposed to high levels of background radiation from uranics in the soil and water.
But none of these people seem to be as effected by radiation as they should be. The question is why and yes, it's still a question.
It sounds like you're at least interested in the topic so I'd highly recommending researching further. For instance if you do so you would find out why mutation in a single cell is not at all the crisis you think it is, or even that surprising, because you would know how the body handles such cells (which occur all the time from multiple different sources).
fair call re status of the hormesis theory.
what I get from this is that the LNT theory holds more sway; regulators choose precautionary adherance to ALARA. Let's not ignore the obvious fact that there is a powerful industry tugging in the other direction ...
The nuclear industry honestly couldn't give one shit about whether regulators choose LNT/ALARA or "hormesis". If anything hormesis would make their work planning more difficult as then they'd possibly have to worry about ensuring their workers have enough exposure. ALARA is simple and easy and would remain used for work planning.
But either way, nuclear emits less radiation than coal, so if you're worried about public health effects then we're again in the situation that the power company doesn't really have to care either way; if they want less radiation overall they should build a nuke, if they believe in hormesis then coal would probably be preferred, but even assuming a Fukushima-style triple meltdown would not be a large public health disaster.
they don't care? so you may say,
my experience is that the industry includes some players who duck and weave to try to evade application of existing regulatory radiation limits.
and again the coal/nukes false dichotomy.
the fact that this is fundamentally flawed thinking is highlighted by your conclusion that more nuclear plants reduce public radiation exposure.
The only people who think thermal power generation is a false dichotomy are those who haven't tried to spec out power generation schemes that rely completely on unreliable renewables. Specifically, renewables have a much different capacity factor than thermal power designs (like coal or nuclear) and therefore require a very heavy investment in energy storage schemes, especially if the plan is to go 100% renewable.
Even in Germany, which is the example everyone points to, 80% of the shift away from nuclear has been towards coal. Even natural gas would be better than shifting to coal! And despite only shifting 20% of that generation to renewables there have been increasing problems with frequency variation and brief power interruptions on the grid due to the much higher variability in power output from renewable.
