5 ms·

Ok, so they're saying[1] 1 Sv every 30 years. That's 33 mSv a year. Meanwhile, according to [2], "160 mSv: chronic dose to lungs over one year smoking 1.5 packs

Ok, so they're saying[1] 1 Sv every 30 years. That's 33 mSv a year. Meanwhile, according to [2], "160 mSv: chronic dose to lungs over one year smoking 1.5 packs of cigarettes per day, mostly due to inhalation of Polonium-210 and Lead-210". I'm pretty sure heavy smokers are still reproducing successfully. Even if the muon-dose theory is true, it doesn't amount to an extinction-level event for a single species. Cancer takes time to develop; sometimes it doesn't. When the muon flux goes away, life would resume as normal. It might contribute to an extinction event already in progress, but that is not the same thing. And there is a lot of if, if, if in this hyopthetical. [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.09367.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.09367.pdf [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert#Dose_examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert#Dose_examples

autokad 7y ago
I agree, interesting but pretty weak theory. Other events, like north and south america coming together changing global currents and weather systems, seem much more likely to cause catastrophe for marine life.
foota 7y ago
Would the same dose of radiation not be more harmful for a large animal than a person, since there's more volume being affected by it? Edit: just looked it up, a sievert is already per mass.
- gpderetta 7y ago
  And Mass grows faster than surface (which seems relevant for irradiation) , so probably larger animals might be less affected.
Retric 7y ago
“Larger and longer-lived organisms will experience a greater relative increase in radiation dose” 30 mSv does not have that high of a risk to a human, but with 50+ times as much tissue the cancer risks would be vastly higher for whales. A 1% risk in humans might be a 50% risk in a whale species. Further, specific tissues receiving radiation only increases the risk to those tissues. A sunburn does not increase your risk of lung cancer. Making a x mSv exposure to your lungs less risky than that same exposure to your entire body. PS: Heavy smokers also don’t start in infancy. If they did they would be dying ~20 years sooner.
- astazangasta 7y ago
  If your conjectures were true elephants would be dying of cancer all the time. In fact elephants are much more cancer resistant than humans due to differing biology. The whole "more tissue, more disease" part of this is bunkum.
  - Retric 7y ago
    I don’t disagree, but we lack direct evidence for how resident these animals where to radiation. Water is a great shield vs most kinds of radiation as is their bulk which means these animals may have significantly lower resistance. Worse they would still be getting ~1SV over 30 years at ~1km below the oceans let alone the few feet of their bodies. Which is vastly above background radiation levels.
TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
streamed through the atmosphere and fatally irradiated megafauna like the monster shark megalodon ... They get to the ground, they hit you, and some of them will interact with you, and damage your DNA, Melott said. “They are in a sweet spot for affecting ground-based life. Shark ... ground based life. Eh? Are muons attenuated by water?

autokad 7y ago

I agree, interesting but pretty weak theory. Other events, like north and south america coming together changing global currents and weather systems, seem much more likely to cause catastrophe for marine life.

foota 7y ago

Would the same dose of radiation not be more harmful for a large animal than a person, since there's more volume being affected by it? Edit: just looked it up, a sievert is already per mass.

gpderetta 7y ago
And Mass grows faster than surface (which seems relevant for irradiation) , so probably larger animals might be less affected.

Retric 7y ago

“Larger and longer-lived organisms will experience a greater relative increase in radiation dose” 30 mSv does not have that high of a risk to a human, but with 50+ times as much tissue the cancer risks would be vastly higher for whales. A 1% risk in humans might be a 50% risk in a whale species. Further, specific tissues receiving radiation only increases the risk to those tissues. A sunburn does not increase your risk of lung cancer. Making a x mSv exposure to your lungs less risky than that same exposure to your entire body. PS: Heavy smokers also don’t start in infancy. If they did they would be dying ~20 years sooner.

astazangasta 7y ago
If your conjectures were true elephants would be dying of cancer all the time. In fact elephants are much more cancer resistant than humans due to differing biology. The whole "more tissue, more disease" part of this is bunkum.
- Retric 7y ago
  I don’t disagree, but we lack direct evidence for how resident these animals where to radiation. Water is a great shield vs most kinds of radiation as is their bulk which means these animals may have significantly lower resistance. Worse they would still be getting ~1SV over 30 years at ~1km below the oceans let alone the few feet of their bodies. Which is vastly above background radiation levels.

TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago

streamed through the atmosphere and fatally irradiated megafauna like the monster shark megalodon ... They get to the ground, they hit you, and some of them will interact with you, and damage your DNA, Melott said. “They are in a sweet spot for affecting ground-based life. Shark ... ground based life. Eh? Are muons attenuated by water?