4 ms·
> and in doing so has been exposed to more radiation than almost anyone in history This is patently absurd. Those exposed to the most radiation are all dead an
by xigency 11y ago
> and in doing so has been exposed to more radiation than almost anyone in history
This is patently absurd. Those exposed to the most radiation are all dead and died from radiation exposure, effects, and side effects.
- make3 11y agoI also thought the claim was really dubious, although I thought the author meant total over the guys lifetime, which would probably not be impossible if he spread the exposure quite a bit (compared to the people who died from shorter intense exposure)
- ars 11y agoSee here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis The idea is that a small amount of radiation spread over time is survivable. So in sum total he may have had more than anyone else. (I won't include anyone who instantly died in hiroshima.)
- xigency 11y agoYes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are obvious comparisons with the amount of instantaneous radiation affecting thousands of individuals. My initial thoughts went to Marie Curie (small amounts over time), and Harry Daghlian and Louis Slotin, or other Los Alamos engineers involved in criticality accidents. Plus, other clean-up workers working in disasters like Chernobyl whose deaths from radiation caused illnesses most likely went unpublished. So at best, that puts him in 10th place with a very loose interpretation, or otherwise significantly behind, and maybe in the top 10 of living individuals. The phrase "in history" is poor writing, however.