4 ms·

> Radioactive material causes cancer so we've clearly caused at least a portion of higher rates of cancer. I don't think anyone argues that radioactive testing

by dpark 8y ago

> Radioactive material causes cancer so we've clearly caused at least a portion of higher rates of cancer. I don't think anyone argues that radioactive testing has significantly (or even measurably) increased the background radiation level on Earth. Contrast with carbon dioxide, where we have increased by ~40%. If we had evidence that nuclear testing had significantly increased background radiation levels, then the assertions that it's increased cancer rates and that we should try to clean it up would both be true.

smueller1234 8y ago
Err, wait a minute. Atmospheric nuclear weapons tests HAVE measurably increased background radiation. Source: See for example both the table and the C14 graph at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation Source 2: Grad degree in physics. Worked at nuclear physics lab.
- dpark 8y ago
  Well then. I was not aware that we had done that much with our nuclear testing. Obviously then we did probably cause an increase in cancer. On the bright side it looks like we’re almost back to baseline.
  - southern_cross 8y ago
    Be careful about making too much cancer attribution here, though. For one, naturally occurring background radiation levels can be (and often are) far higher than most people realize, and our bodies have long ago adapted to that as best they can. Two, in addition to other pollutants, burning coal also releases quite a bit of radiation, far more than you average nuclear plant or whatever. Third, for the longest time a dose of radiation received all at once vs. that same dose of radiation received over time were treated as if they were exactly the same biologically. But now that we have actual long-term results to go by, it turns out that radiation received over time is generally somewhere between 10x and 100x less dangerous biologically than if that same radiation were received all at once. Also, it matters a lot what the type of radiation received is and where you receive it. For example, radiation received by the skin (dead tissue) may be all but inconsequential, while that same radiation received in the lungs or gut or bloodstream (live tissue) may potentially be disastrous.
    - smueller1234 8y ago
      Those are all good points and for anyone reading along with curiosity, I'd actually recommend the Wikipedia link two posts up as a nice starting point for learning more. Wikipedia on this general subject area isn't too shabby, I thought when I last went down the rabbit hole.

by dpark 8y ago

smueller1234 8y ago

Err, wait a minute. Atmospheric nuclear weapons tests HAVE measurably increased background radiation. Source: See for example both the table and the C14 graph at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation Source 2: Grad degree in physics. Worked at nuclear physics lab.

dpark 8y ago
Well then. I was not aware that we had done that much with our nuclear testing. Obviously then we did probably cause an increase in cancer. On the bright side it looks like we’re almost back to baseline.
- southern_cross 8y ago
  Be careful about making too much cancer attribution here, though. For one, naturally occurring background radiation levels can be (and often are) far higher than most people realize, and our bodies have long ago adapted to that as best they can. Two, in addition to other pollutants, burning coal also releases quite a bit of radiation, far more than you average nuclear plant or whatever. Third, for the longest time a dose of radiation received all at once vs. that same dose of radiation received over time were treated as if they were exactly the same biologically. But now that we have actual long-term results to go by, it turns out that radiation received over time is generally somewhere between 10x and 100x less dangerous biologically than if that same radiation were received all at once. Also, it matters a lot what the type of radiation received is and where you receive it. For example, radiation received by the skin (dead tissue) may be all but inconsequential, while that same radiation received in the lungs or gut or bloodstream (live tissue) may potentially be disastrous.
  - smueller1234 8y ago
    Those are all good points and for anyone reading along with curiosity, I'd actually recommend the Wikipedia link two posts up as a nice starting point for learning more. Wikipedia on this general subject area isn't too shabby, I thought when I last went down the rabbit hole.