Live data from Hacker News

We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

nytimes.com

161–167 of 167 posts

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#161
post #86
post #74

CT Scan doses vary wildly depending on the type of X-ray (chest, head, limb, etc.), the size of the person, and a lot of other things. The bigger the cross-section of the thing you put in a scanner, the greater the exposure. CT machines themselves also vary considerably. Newer machines are often more sensitive and employ better imaging software, so they can do their job while delivering a much smaller dose. Anyone wh…

As someone now in Hong Kong about to fly back home to SF, I have always tried to schedule my flights so that I minimize my exposure to day time radiation. I guess I'm in the minority, but it's something to consider when taking international flights.

But the cosmic radiation does not come from the sun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray

Then, in 1912, Victor Hess carried three enhanced-accuracy Wulf electrometers[12] to an altitude of 5300 meters in a free balloon flight. He found the ionization rate increased approximately fourfold over the rate at ground level.[12] Hess also ruled out the Sun as the radiation's source by making a balloon ascent during a near-total eclipse. With the moon blocking much of the Sun's visible radiation, Hess still measured rising radiation at rising altitudes.[12] He concluded "The results of my observation are best explained by the assumption that a radiation of very great penetrating power enters our atmosphere from above." In 1913–1914, Werner Kolhörster confirmed Victor Hess' earlier results by measuring the increased ionization rate at an altitude of 9 km.

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#162
This article does not represent current state of knowledge in this field, and makes many misleading statements. I have presented a line-by-line criticism of the article in my blog which is available at: http://are-we-really-giving-ourselves-cancer.blogspot.com/

CT scans are safe, and the present concerns regarding radiation dose from CT scans are not justified by any evidence.

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some claim that wifi and cell phone emissions bouncing around in the cabin are also cause for concern. I've no idea if it's true, but I can imagine that inside an aluminum tube 150 wifi cards trying to connect might have some biological effect.

"Some claim" a lot of things. http://i.imgur.com/7LzpYl4.jpg

Hopefully the two guys giving that talk show up and put up a slide that says »No«.

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#164
post #51

Any people here who go to the dentist? Specifically, the American Dental Association's guidelines for heathy persons suggest that * children receive 1 x-ray every 1-2 years, * teens every 1.5-3 years, * and adults every 2-3 years. ~ http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/243952.php I was personally very surprised and alarmed by this.

Before getting alarmed consider doing the math to assign numerical value to level of danger. Wikipedia article on Sievert has the formulas for it, as well as benchmark values to judge the outcome. If you don't want to do the math, consider this handy chart: http://xkcd.com/radiation/

Why does a kid who hasn't lost his baby-teeth need dental x-rays?

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#165

Big elephant in the room: Pre-test ban atmospheric nuclear tests. Of course, there's nothing anyone can do about it. The somatic damage period is probably more or less over, but we are transitioning through the genetic damage period.

Squeaky mouse in the room: the actual numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation Natural background: 2.40 mSv/year (world average) Atmospheric testing: "peak of 0.11 mSv in 1963"

Isotopes of specific atoms have a different biochemical targetting and effect than EM radiation. Iodine is concentrated in the thyroid, strontium makes its way to the bone (close to hematopoetic stem cells), etc.

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#166
This article does not represent current state of knowledge in this field, and makes many misleading statements. I have presented a line-by-line criticism of the article in my blog which is available at:

http://are-we-really-giving-ourselves-cancer.blogspot.com/

CT scans are safe, and the present concerns regarding radiation dose from CT scans are not justified by any evidence.

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#167
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took more than 20 in a couple of months (ordered by myself) after doctors couldn't find anything concrete (later on the current diagnostic is "fybromialgia" and the symptoms remain nearly 2 years later). I was aware of cancer danger but I needed to find some treatment before ending completely mad.

You may be interested in http://www.intidyn.com/Newsroom/article-0009.html - the probable cause of fibro has been identified - which will be a huge boon to the sufferers - including my girlfriend.

Than you. I'm very up to the news on r/fibro (reddit) and I already read that article but I'm glad you brought it up here. Since my diagnostic I'm also trying to make my way to develop health tech that could help mitigate (completely or partially) the pain and the other symptoms, so now I'm living in the bay area instead of my own country.
Post reply on HN