[ampdepolymerase]

The math sounds nonsensical. The risk adjusted exposure from a reactor should definitely be higher as you would be closer to the threshold of DNA bond breaking. Being stabbed once a year isn't necessary better than getting hundred paper cuts. Any actuaries here care to comment?

[jcims]

There are mountains of literature and regulations on this and the math just kind of works that way (up to some limit, beyond which acute radiation effects will begin to dominate)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model

There is now some thought that very low doses of ionizing radiation are better than no radiation at all (so called 'radiation hormesis'), but I don't believe that has been adopted as part of any specific standard.

FWIW an individual person may be experiencing up to a trillion DNA mutations per day from both external and internal mechanisms of action. We just have a bunch of systems built in to prevent them from getting out of control (most of the time).

[ErikVandeWater]

> The risk adjusted exposure from a reactor should definitely be higher as you would be closer to the threshold of DNA bond breaking.

How are you so certain? You don't know the specifics of the situation. If he worked underwater for a year and spent half a day working on a reactor in protective gear it could easily even out.

[manquer]

He is not saying the overall exposure may not be same (it could be) he is saying risk of cancer or other bad side effects may not be equal in both scenarios.

[giantg2]

Depends on what the actual numbers are. Can't really do the math without them.