3 ms·
It wasn't thrown around to scare people, it was used because it's accurate. I fail to see how my statement is inaccurate considering by your own admission there
by rnovak 11y ago
It wasn't thrown around to scare people, it was used because it's accurate. I fail to see how my statement is inaccurate considering by your own admission there are indeed several (3) orders of magnitude difference.
The point I was trying to make was saying that it's some negligible number is wrong. By your own handy reference, it's the equivalent of 2 Dentist x-rays.
The dentist at least has the decency to put a lead bib over you.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago> I fail to see how my statement is inaccurate considering by your own admission there are indeed several (3) orders of magnitude difference. "Three orders of magnitude" is a meaningless thing without context, and I just pointed out that in this context it still doesn't change the conclusion that the exposure is neglible and not worth considering. > The dentist at least has the decency to put a lead bib over you. That's because people are irrational and you need to dance around them for their own sake.
- rnovak 11y agoMy context: Person A says 1 does of product A is Amount X. What I'm saying is: That's not entirely relevant if we don't know how many doses people actually get. I agree about irrational, among other things.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago> What I'm saying is: That's not entirely relevant if we don't know how many doses people actually get. True. But then if we count up the reasonable upper bound of possible doses you could get, like "several thousands times a day times amount X", and it still adds up to "not harmful", should we keep being distressed about it?
- rnovak 11y agoSee, I'm totally okay with that explanation then. If the upper bound is insignificant, then I see no reason to worry about the health aspects.