51–57 of 57 posts
I know, that I just attack a small detail here and that this is not a valid way to argue against something, but I have difficulties trusting some journalist who gets these basics wrong.
I was just asking how well researched an article like this is, if the get the name of the town wrong. It might be an autocorrect typo, but "Bad Steven" is, was and will be "Bad Steben" (some 20 or so miles from my hometown). I know, that I just attack a small detail here and that this is not a valid way to argue against something, but I have difficulties trusting some journalist who gets these basics wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Radiation therapy treatments are almost always fractionated, meaning the total dose prescribed by the radiation oncologist is spread fairly evenly across multiple days, typically 25-38 treatments for most disease sites. And since patients are rarely treated on the weekend, it usually takes 1 to 2 months for a patient to complete treatment. I don't know that I would consider 1 to 2 months a short time. There are some…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
A moderate amount of sunlight on skin, without burning, is actually healthy for you, unless you 1) have various illnesses (lupus, for one), or 2) are genetically predisposed to skin cancer.
[0] http://www.webmd.com/melanoma-skin-cancer/news/20140530/5-or...
See my answer here: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/2490/1792 tl;dr: "There is empirical evidence that suggests that low to medium amounts of absorbed gamma radiation boosts immunity and resilience to ailments such as heart disease, though it may (or may not) increase rates of cancer. It has been suggested and that the reduction in the probability of death from other diseases offsets the increased probability of…
Earlier 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.
We are told that mostly UV and electromagnetic radiation reach the earth and Sunlight is danger of skin cancer. Have we all read the peer reviewed studies and do we really know how often the sun potential sends a surge of Gamma radiation through your body? Isn't a great concern of long term solar system exploration about astronauts getting all sorts of cancer? How sure are we that the earth's atmosphere is protecting us from the same gamma radiation and that it isn't causing more than just skin cancer? Science evolves and surprises often occur. I personally am not so convinced that the Sun couldn't cause much more dangerous types of radiation myself but, I admit this isn't an area of research for me.