This article from 10/2015 in AAAS is also interesting:
"Humans are worse than radiation for Chernobyl animals, study finds"
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/humans-are-worse-radi...
Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
21–30 of 57 posts
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#22Here's some living proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kg4vVYKc90
This lady is bitten by a radioactive ant, live on camera.... near Chernobyl.
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#23We've known for a long time the LNT model doesn't reflect reality. It's still used because we don't have anything better, it's simple, and people like to put numbers on things even if the numbers are known to be wrong.
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#24One thing I did not see mentioned in the article, and which seems to never make it into most articles about the risks (or hypothetical benefits) of radiation exposure, is the massive amount of information we have about the effects of radiation from radiation oncology. Six times as many people as were exposed at Hiroshima are irradiated on purpose in the USA alone every year. And the radiation is actually measured and…
Radiation oncology treatments usually focus a high dose on a single small area during a series of short time periods. So I think it would be difficult to draw any conclusions from that about the likely effects of low-dose whole body exposure over longer periods.
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#25This is a pretty terrible article on many levels:
- It says "Chernobyl hints", but there is no information about Chernobyl. The article itself says "We simply do not know" how many people died of cancer due to Chernobyl.
- The Radon spa study is very poor. We already know that going to any type of spa is going to improve your immune system, mainly due to the psychological effects. There was no control group in the experiment, so we have no idea if the radon had any effect.
- We already know that low-level radon exposure increases lung cancer risk.
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Risking cancer to diminish heart disease? lol no thanks. I'd rather eat vegetables and take a walk once in a while.
Don't walk in sunlight or you'll get exposed to low doses of radiation that "could" cause cancer. Also be cautious about where you buy those vegetables. There is a good chance they could contain things that also "could" cause cancer.
And then we get to the extreme paranoia where everything is generally recognized to cause cancer. And I'm not even convinced they're wrong, given the rates of cancer in people who (most likely) have never been exposed to anything (that they know of).
Although, then again, there's the problem of grandchildren of smokers getting cancer, when never having been exposed to the smoking first or second hand, only genetically through their parents.
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#27One thing I did not see mentioned in the article, and which seems to never make it into most articles about the risks (or hypothetical benefits) of radiation exposure, is the massive amount of information we have about the effects of radiation from radiation oncology. Six times as many people as were exposed at Hiroshima are irradiated on purpose in the USA alone every year. And the radiation is actually measured and…
Radiation oncology treatments usually focus a high dose on a single small area during a series of short time periods. So I think it would be difficult to draw any conclusions from that about the likely effects of low-dose whole body exposure over longer periods.
Chest x-rays for example dose lots of tissue. CT scans are significantly 100-1000x higher than that and well above whole body average annual radiation exposure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CT_scan
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#28Here's some living proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kg4vVYKc90 This lady is bitten by a radioactive ant, live on camera.... near Chernobyl.
Wasn't this the origin story of Antagone?
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Risking cancer to diminish heart disease? lol no thanks. I'd rather eat vegetables and take a walk once in a while.
Don't walk in sunlight or you'll get exposed to low doses of radiation that "could" cause cancer. Also be cautious about where you buy those vegetables. There is a good chance they could contain things that also "could" cause cancer.
Unless you are getting sunburns, this is not true. In fact, sunlight on skin promotes vitamin D production, which is known to help fight cancer.
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't walk in sunlight or you'll get exposed to low doses of radiation that "could" cause cancer. Also be cautious about where you buy those vegetables. There is a good chance they could contain things that also "could" cause cancer.
Unless you are getting sunburns, this is not true. In fact, sunlight on skin promotes vitamin D production, which is known to help fight cancer.
The presence of a sunburn is orthogonal to the fact that you do, in fact, become exposed to radiation in sunlight. That is unequivocally true and trivially proven, whether you receive a sunburn or not.
I don't think the person you are replying to meant that sunlight exposure unconditionally causes cancer, and was simply addressing radiation scare and putting it in context.