21–30 of 144 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cancer cured (in mice)! Radiation response shown to be sub-linear (in flies)!
At the time (the 1950s) evidence from fruit flies was essentially all the evidence there was. But as the article points out we have pretty good data showing it works the same way in humans.
> Drinking one beer a night for a year is a lot less harmful than drinking 365 beers in one go. The same applies to radiation exposure, but regulation doesn’t agree. Stating something confidently doesn't make it true. Show me the data. The article is long on emotion, exposition, but very short on the data. There's a big concerted effort to change this regulation, but it's not based on data, it's based on feelings. It…
Is the regulation based on hard, systematic and replicated data? Looks based on emotion (fear, greed) too
There's no safe dose of radiation, there's only statistics.
And I'm not sure what this article is supposed to justify? Building power generation technology with the potential to make whole regions unlivable is ok now?
Willfully creating hazards that can affect people for thousands of years, starting with Uranium mining & processing to nuclear waste is a good idea?
Having to fortify a nuclear plant so it can withstand a plane crash (most won't withstand double plane crashes), securing it against terrorist - and then still have it fall into enemy hands that can use it as a bargaining chip (Russians are controlling Zaporizhzhia) is a good idea?
You know what the engineers of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima had in common? They thought their plants were safe.
So even if "Radiation totally not bad, actually healthy" is the point here: It is still a tremendously stupid idea to build nuclear power plants when there are much better and cheaper alternatives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
in a world where there is no safe low radiation dose, it would be quite easy to generate the data to demonstrate this. so either low doses cause no harm or cause such minimal harm as to be safely disregarded. luckily the government is moving away from your position: https://www.eenews.net/articles/nrc-considers-eliminating-ha... not having cheaper nuclear energy imposes a far greater cost on society.
Luckily? The NRC is considering it, hopefully they follow science rather than popular propaganda. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4 > in a world where there is no safe low radiation dose, it would be quite easy to generate the data to demonstrate this. This is the classic fallacy seeing an absence of evidence and using that as evidence of absence! And the lack of evidence goes both ways, it should be…
But, I mostly just skimmed through the beginning of the article, so maybe it gets better, like maybe the author reveals an international cabal of influential anti-nuclear activists who are holding human progress back.
Paradoxically active ongoing research suggests that the same dose of (medically determined) radiation delivered over a very short period of time increases its efficacy against the cancer compared to damage to the surrounding tissue. Here's one: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10640654/
Paradoxically active ongoing research suggests that the same dose of (medically determined) radiation delivered over a very short period of time increases its efficacy against the cancer compared to damage to the surrounding tissue. Here's one: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10640654/
https://radiation-research.kglmeridian.com/view/journals/rar...
Some of the authors of that work were still active when the "Flash" concept came around again, and to hear them tell the story they tried to get funding to test it in tumour-bearing mice, but both their lab heads and external funders were sure the effect would be the same in tumours as normal tissue, and so wouldn't fund the work.
They eventually moved on to other things, and it needed a few decades for someone with enough soft money to give it a go and kick off this new research field.
E.g. even 10x the normal background is still ridiculously low.
Also, the LNT model is good enough. It's really the most conservative model that we have, so it makes sense to keep using it. We just need to quantify the risk increases properly.
"Lie" is such a click-baity triggering word to use here. Sounds more like they overstated the harm of cumulative small doses of radiation. But, I mostly just skimmed through the beginning of the article, so maybe it gets better, like maybe the author reveals an international cabal of influential anti-nuclear activists who are holding human progress back.
Not even that, they simply didn’t know because they couldn’t measure, so they took a conservative approach.
Btw you can count me in to the cabal of anti-nuclear activists. Humans simply are too greedy and incompetent to manage the technology responsibly over the long term. We’ve already irreversibly altered the biosphere with the nuclear activity we’ve engaged in so far. Time for it to stop.