Original link: https://yufree.cn/cn/2023/08/26/i-dont-know/
This month, LK-99 and Japan’s nuclear sewage discharge into the sea have been highly discussed, and gods from all walks of life have stepped down and danced to the gods, which is more interesting than any series. But let’s talk about trouble, there are some things that can be discussed here.
Discuss first whether you should trust authorities or scientists. The public thinks that the image of a professional scientist is that of Chen Jingrun, which is equivalent to studying a subject for more than ten years without thinking about food and tea, and finally making a breakthrough. The career paths of professional scientists that I know of are roughly like this:
Doctoral research topic A, the result is not good, change topic B halfway, barely or successfully graduate. In the post-doctorate stage, I studied topic C, which is slightly related to B, and the results are still average. Later, I changed to topic D, which has nothing to do with it. The results are acceptable, and I will continue to stay in academia. In the first six years of scientific research, I racked my brains every day to beg for food from the Foundation Committee, as long as I tried to apply for the projects related to ABCD that I had done before, and continued to manage contacts, I finally got enough money on a certain project E to exchange for a lifetime. I have a teaching position, and the project executor is my doctoral student or postdoctoral fellow, so it doesn’t matter if I don’t understand it. Five years before Topic E was completed, a new technology suddenly appeared. The new research team seized the opportunity to apply and publish a big article as a newsletter, using this article as a springboard to apply and win Big Topic F. During the progress of subject F, I was keenly aware of the connection between F and subject A and asked the students to do research. The results were good. When the research was reported, the reporter wrote: The leader of the subject has studied subject A for more than 20 years. Authoritative experts in the field have worked hard and finally made a breakthrough.
With the current level of refined division of scientific research, there should indeed be an expert who is particularly proficient in a large field, but this expert is more likely to be a teacher who teaches this course at a university rather than a researcher in a certain specialized field. For particularly cutting-edge research fields, it may not be possible to form a theoretical system at all. People use various experimental methods to repeat first to confirm the existence of this phenomenon, and then discuss the cause of the phenomenon. To put it bluntly, there is a high probability that a certain theory does not hold true or is false at first glance. It is students who are used to textbooks and prefer to show off, master-level science writers, or junior scientific researchers. In many fields, even senior scientific researchers who have studied for many years face new phenomena. Knowledge may not be enough either, and at this point it is naturally the result of more experiments or at least shutting up and waiting for others. There is no such thing as cutting-edge scientific research that can be expressed qualitatively when it comes up. Repetition is the key. New discoveries may also be made during the process of repetition, and even completely break away from the original field. Ordinary people or enthusiasts don’t rush to stand in line, just wait and see and be skeptical. By the way, I hope to see the discussion of front-line scientific researchers who have done relevant experiments, published double-digit articles in related fields, and reviewed more than double-digit articles in related fields. How many such people are there? There are many, except for a few disciplines or directions such as mathematics and theoretical physics. Under the modern scientific research system, such people in the experimental disciplines have a high probability of cutting off funding and switching to other careers. Many people only have one or two experiments in their lifetime. result.
So is the International Atomic Energy Agency capable of judging the risk of nuclear sewage? If it is wastewater from normal operation of nuclear power plants, it can probably be used as a reference. If it is nuclear sewage, then only those who have participated in the sewage treatment after the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident have almost negligible experience. When the act of using seawater to cool the reactor occurs, it basically throws in half of the periodic table of elements, and it is estimated that no one in the world knows what will be generated in it. So should I believe the ALPS system that TEPCO said? I have studied the environment to some extent. At least the undergraduate water treatment textbooks do not talk about radioactive isotope treatment methods. According to the information released now, ALPS does not seem to use any new technology. , is basically a conventional water treatment technology, that is, adsorption and chemical precipitation. This technology can also be used to clean heavy metal wastewater, provided that you know which radioactive elements are in it, and then use the corresponding precipitation to remove them in a targeted manner. The question of whether the removal is good or not is beyond the scope of anyone, and experimental quantitative evidence is needed. But the measurement evidence that can be seen so far is only Tepco itself. It said that there was only tritium before. Later, others found that there was carbon 14 and admitted that there might be carbon 14. There is a logical sophistry here. Based on the theoretical processing effect, that is, what I know is removed, and the remaining radioactivity is tritium, but it may also be an element they have not processed purposefully. I’m not questioning intentional concealment. It’s more likely that they don’t know what’s in it. Simply measuring the radiation is of limited significance, and they don’t know whether the sum of single isotope radiation is equal to the total radiation. The data they disclose is in Japanese. There is only an English summary, which in itself is a wrong attitude.
The same scenario applies to the expert group of the International Atomic Energy Agency. If they can’t see the third-party data, they can’t draw any valuable conclusions simply by looking at TEPCO data. Now they say that the remaining radioactivity in the water after treatment is tritium and carbon-14. If it is only these two, it may be okay to evaluate, but if it comes from other elements, it is another problem entirely. Different marine species have different bioaccumulation effects on different nuclides, and it does not mean that there is a specific choice for radioactive isotopes. It is simply that certain elements will be absorbed and enriched, and by the way, radioactive ones will also be absorbed. This The complexity of the problem should not be solved by current carbon-based organisms. The report of the International Atomic Energy Agency is a report that judges known problems based on known data, but real problems require them to judge unknown problems based on unknown data. Experts on this issue can only deduce based on existing theories, and experimental quantitative evidence is obviously more accurate. Important, but the problem is that this kind of experiment was also done in Chernobyl, and did not involve the cooling of seawater. In the face of unknown scenarios, experts have no past experience and no experimental evidence. What they see is only the data that TEPCO itself conceals, and the reference value is very limited. What is really valuable is the nuclear wastewater discharged by TEPCO in 2011. I checked the literature and found that it took more than a year to reach the west coast of the United States. The radioactivity of cesium-137 did not reach its peak until five or six years after the incident. What Japan is doing next is 30-year continuous emissions, and it is impossible to estimate. I don’t know if there is cesium 137 this time. I don’t think the credibility of Tepco’s own data is high, and we have to wait for third-party testing data. If abnormalities are seen next year and the peak value is measured five or six years later, then ALPS will be a joke.
Quantitative experimental research may be the only way to live with the unknown, and the vast majority of discussions on the Internet do not fall into this category. Either the source of the data is not clear, or the ass decides the head, and many of them are to maintain their image as a science and technology expert. Without direct data, they always like to use indirect evidence to support their views. For an unknown new phenomenon, viewpoints are the least important. Repeated experiments and quantitative results are more informative, and there are various limitations and repetitions. Specific individuals may also undergo a process of inclination conversion. This is not a matter of principle. Of course, when a purely new phenomenon is put into public opinion, there will definitely be discussions outside of science. These discussions may have very little practical significance related to the issue itself. , but there will be other meanings of carrying private goods. Whether these can be seen or want to be seen depends entirely on the individual.
Here I also briefly talk about how to formulate standards in conventional toxicology. Generally, epidemiology first observes the relationship between a certain exposure risk and health. At this time, in vitro cell exposure experiments and animal experiments can be carried out to study the mechanism of toxicity. However, even if the mechanism is not clear, we usually dilute it with the smallest no-effect dose. Ten times as a safety standard. The problem here is that there are many toxicity endpoints in toxicology, which may be lethal, carcinogenic, teratogenic, or liver toxicity, nephrotoxicity, or skin toxicity. The dose of the same substance at different toxicity endpoints may be completely different, so The minimum no-effect dose should be used, and the dose at this time refers to the smallest of all toxicity endpoints. But the problem is that there are too many toxicity endpoints. Even for known toxic substances, many chronic toxicity endpoints have not yet been clarified. In addition, in addition to the toxicity endpoint, different exposure routes have different effects. For radiation toxicity, especially low-dose long-term exposure, it is more a matter of probability. Some sensitive people may see the effect quickly, and some may not have any effect. At present, the standard given by scientists is more of a long attributive quantitative expression, that is, the vast majority of people who are below this number in a limited scenario are fine, but what about the minority? Sorry, the standard is not set for a very small number of people, don’t come here to touch porcelain, and this quantitative expression must also limit the type of isotope. By the way, “dose determines toxicity” is a toxicological description. From the perspective of exposure, the source of exposure, route of exposure and dose should be fully considered. It is much more complicated than simple toxicological issues. It is difficult to give a simple and clear answer, entangled in a standard The numbers here may be useful in litigation, but the impact on evaluation is very pale.
In fact, for most people, the biggest source of radiation exposure should be radon gas in a closed environment. It is now clear that this thing is related to lung cancer, and it will have a synergistic effect with smoking. As for other things, the main reason is that the epidemiological data is limited, and only the amount of radiation can be measured. People themselves are exposed to natural background radiation. Because of the protection of the atmosphere, the impact of cosmic radiation is limited, that is, high latitude, high altitude and frequent flying. The amount of radioactive pollution on the surface is mainly carbon-14 and potassium-40, and about 7,000 atoms in the human body undergo radioactive decay every second (from the Merck Manual for Medical Professionals). As long as you don’t live in a basement or a thousand-year-old cave or do CT in the hospital every day, there is a high probability that you will not have the opportunity to be exposed to other elements on the periodic table. Speaking of these, I mainly want to say that in the face of possible risks, our existing knowledge cannot cover them, so don’t scare yourself. In a decade or two, we will probably be able to get a batch of data from the experiment of the Fukushima platoon, which may have an impact or may not have any impact at all. From a scientific point of view, it is probably an experiment. However, this kind of experiment must abide by the principle of informed consent. The Japanese government and Tepco may have partly done it in terms of informed consent, but there are serious flaws in the aspect of consent. Reason to ask for praise. And in fact, Tepco has already discharged in 2011. It is said that a retrospective study can be done now to see the health impact, but this experiment may be difficult to design.
Some people may think that researchers will have an answer, which is true, but whether the answer is accurate or not will have to wait for more experimental results. Science belongs to science, and decision-making belongs to decision-making. If you want to make scientific decisions, you must at least wait for the p-value of a randomized controlled trial, not to mention the scenario where the p-value is low and the effect is weak. For each individual, if you really plan to understand the world through scientific means, it is best to exercise and live longer. As for whether to eat seafood or whether to grab salt, I can give a hint from a quantitative perspective. The top three causes of death in the world are ischemic heart disease, stroke and COPD, and COPD may be related to radiation energy. Lungs, and it is also related to radon. If you look at it carefully, car accident diarrhea can sometimes be ranked in the top ten miles. If you are driving to grab salt or rush to eat the last batch of seafood, it is not necessarily a good choice from the perspective of risk quantification. There is no need to fight or engage in hedging or siding in concepts or theories. From a rational point of view, there is no need to take a one-thousandth risk in order to reduce a one-thousandth risk. As long as you are alive, there are risks. Don’t ignore the familiar high risks, and don’t pay too much attention to the unknown unquantified risks. It is best to wait for more quantitative experiments and observational evidence. You have to ask how long it takes to wait. I don’t know. Maybe the 8 billion people living on the earth are dead. These questions have not found the final answer, or we have found a more interesting topic. This is the normal state of scientific research.
Not knowing the answer is also an answer.
This article is transferred from: https://yufree.cn/cn/2023/08/26/i-dont-know/
This site is only for collection, and the copyright belongs to the original author.