5 ms·

Really? That very quote says that they reject it "despite population and scientific evidence." And from further down in the article: "Until the [...] uncertai

Really? That very quote says that they reject it "despite population and scientific evidence." And from further down in the article: "Until the [...] uncertainties on low-dose response are resolved, the Committee believes that an increase in the risk of tumour induction proportionate to the radiation dose is consistent with developing knowledge and that it remains, accordingly, the most scientifically defensible approximation of low-dose response. However, a strictly linear dose response should not be expected in all circumstances." There's a lot of confounding factors that make studying low-level radiation doses hard, including background radiation and the long timelines involved. I'm perfectly fine regulatory agencies working with an assumption of a LNT model until conclusive proof otherwise is provided. These agencies should be focused on safety and lean conservatively when in doubt. But attempting to call it not a debate is misleading at best.

acqq 11y ago
Read the linked text, don't cherry pick. "Evidence" as in "one single study, contrary to all other studies" and as "the DNA was less damaged with the lower doses." It's a long jump from "the destructed DNA is in percentages better repaired at low radiation doses than at higher ones" (if even that is provable, compared to simply "the DNA was less hit") to any reliable proof that the low doses are actually beneficial. Again, who actually has the interest in presenting this unsupported "beneficial" claim as the "debate"?
- jdmichal 11y ago
  I'm not cherry-picking anything; these are quotes from the published opinion. And both leave space for doubt, because the science is not conclusive. As I said, I support their decision; it's definitely a "better safe than sorry" situation. And why does there have to be an agenda, as opposed to simply being an unresolved scientific point of contention? We don't know if there's life on Europa either, and I'm sure there's scientists on both sides. But I wouldn't say any of them have an agenda except for making the best educated guess they can, lacking any solid evidence one way or another. EDIT: Also, to reply to an earlier point: > There's no even any logical proof that the radiation, that even in the lowest dosages destructs the DNA whenever it hits it, can make beneficial mutations instead of simply producing a cancer. It can also just kill the cell. If it kills problematic or pre-problematic cells more proportionately than healthy cells, then the net effect could be positive. Such disproportionate effects are the very basis of otherwise indiscriminate treatments like chemotherapy [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotherapy#Mechanism_of_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotherapy#Mechanism_of_acti...
  - acqq 11y ago
    > And why does there have to be an agenda, as opposed to simply being an unresolved scientific point of contention? Because there's no way that the radiation particles don't destruct DNA if they hit it. The "debaters" don't have any scientific explanation how it can be even "harmless" not to mention "beneficial." Chemotherapy is just "let's kill enough of this guy's fast replicating cells to kill the cancer cells before they kill him." There's absolutely no any connection there to the radiation effects on the DNA.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Damaged DNA gets repaired. The proposed mechanism for hormesis is that low levels of radiation stimulate the repair process and get the immune system to step in earlier. I have no idea if this is really true, but it doesn't seem absurd on its face.
      - acqq 11y ago
        There's no observed instance of such "earlier repair," it's just an invented "hypothesis." Only the non-linearity is observed, and not even by majority of the experiments. The explanation for the observed non-linearity is that the single impacted cells simply have time to die (or be targeted by the white cells) at low levels, whereas at higher dosages there are enough cells for cancer to progress more often. It's just the game of probabilities at the levels at which we have enough noise (low enough doses).
    - jdmichal 11y ago
      We're constantly bombarded with radiation by simply living. We wouldn't make it to adult hood if all DNA damage was lethal. DNA damage is more likely to be repairable or outright kill a cell than cause cancer, just by pure numbers. > Chemotherapy is just "let's kill enough percentage of this guys cells to kill the cancer cells before they kill him." That's exactly what I said with "otherwise indiscriminate treatments." Our body is not a homogenous mass of one type of cell; different cells react differently. If cancer cells react disproportionately negatively to a substance than other cell types, then that substance could be useful to treat cancer. All forms of hormesis are basically an extension of this idea: that the harm done by a substance can be otherwise offset by positive effects.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

acqq 11y ago

Read the linked text, don't cherry pick. "Evidence" as in "one single study, contrary to all other studies" and as "the DNA was less damaged with the lower doses." It's a long jump from "the destructed DNA is in percentages better repaired at low radiation doses than at higher ones" (if even that is provable, compared to simply "the DNA was less hit") to any reliable proof that the low doses are actually beneficial. Again, who actually has the interest in presenting this unsupported "beneficial" claim as the "debate"?

jdmichal 11y ago
I'm not cherry-picking anything; these are quotes from the published opinion. And both leave space for doubt, because the science is not conclusive. As I said, I support their decision; it's definitely a "better safe than sorry" situation. And why does there have to be an agenda, as opposed to simply being an unresolved scientific point of contention? We don't know if there's life on Europa either, and I'm sure there's scientists on both sides. But I wouldn't say any of them have an agenda except for making the best educated guess they can, lacking any solid evidence one way or another. EDIT: Also, to reply to an earlier point: > There's no even any logical proof that the radiation, that even in the lowest dosages destructs the DNA whenever it hits it, can make beneficial mutations instead of simply producing a cancer. It can also just kill the cell. If it kills problematic or pre-problematic cells more proportionately than healthy cells, then the net effect could be positive. Such disproportionate effects are the very basis of otherwise indiscriminate treatments like chemotherapy [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotherapy#Mechanism_of_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotherapy#Mechanism_of_acti...
- acqq 11y ago
  > And why does there have to be an agenda, as opposed to simply being an unresolved scientific point of contention? Because there's no way that the radiation particles don't destruct DNA if they hit it. The "debaters" don't have any scientific explanation how it can be even "harmless" not to mention "beneficial." Chemotherapy is just "let's kill enough of this guy's fast replicating cells to kill the cancer cells before they kill him." There's absolutely no any connection there to the radiation effects on the DNA.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Damaged DNA gets repaired. The proposed mechanism for hormesis is that low levels of radiation stimulate the repair process and get the immune system to step in earlier. I have no idea if this is really true, but it doesn't seem absurd on its face.
    - acqq 11y ago
      There's no observed instance of such "earlier repair," it's just an invented "hypothesis." Only the non-linearity is observed, and not even by majority of the experiments. The explanation for the observed non-linearity is that the single impacted cells simply have time to die (or be targeted by the white cells) at low levels, whereas at higher dosages there are enough cells for cancer to progress more often. It's just the game of probabilities at the levels at which we have enough noise (low enough doses).
  - jdmichal 11y ago
    We're constantly bombarded with radiation by simply living. We wouldn't make it to adult hood if all DNA damage was lethal. DNA damage is more likely to be repairable or outright kill a cell than cause cancer, just by pure numbers. > Chemotherapy is just "let's kill enough percentage of this guys cells to kill the cancer cells before they kill him." That's exactly what I said with "otherwise indiscriminate treatments." Our body is not a homogenous mass of one type of cell; different cells react differently. If cancer cells react disproportionately negatively to a substance than other cell types, then that substance could be useful to treat cancer. All forms of hormesis are basically an extension of this idea: that the harm done by a substance can be otherwise offset by positive effects.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]