3 ms·
Consider if we'd only ever seen one person jump from a building, but it was from 10,000 feet. (Consider, also, that some might not find 'fall distance' a reaso
by crystalis 16y ago
Consider if we'd only ever seen one person jump from a building, but it was from 10,000 feet.
(Consider, also, that some might not find 'fall distance' a reasonable analog to radiation relative to other options like 'head trauma induced by soccer ball'.)
- ScotterC 16y agoThere have been extensive studies into radiation exposure. From Navy nukes to Japan's survivors (which are numerous), there's a ton of data but we are dealing with a hypothesis that cannot be proved one way or the other. Low dose radiation's effects appear to be negligible, but just in case we adhere to the linear no threshold theory. This is fine, except for when it is abused and cited to stop progress.
- crystalis 16y ago> This is fine, except for when it is abused and cited to stop progress. This is a more reasonable stance than the blanket 'radiation regulation is silly', but I hesitate to award it too many points - it's hardly a big step to say you're against abuse and for progress. You can have progress and prevent abuse while adhering to (potentially overly) strict safety regulations. (I may also balk at your stark claim of unverifiability - radiation damage is pretty demonstrable.)