2 ms·
> We just don't know without hard numbers. If the risk increased only very little, it would be extremely unlikely for there to be such a big blip in cancer occ
by krageon 7y ago
> We just don't know without hard numbers.
If the risk increased only very little, it would be extremely unlikely for there to be such a big blip in cancer occurrence.
The combat risk is always going to be there, but the cancer is not. Putting those against each other isn't terribly relevant from a decision-making standpoint (unless the odds are very, very low - but we know this is not likely)
So really, we can know a few things with a reasonable degree of certainty.
- eloff 7y agoIs it such a big blip? I didn't see that established either, but I may have missed it while skimming through. The risk of having to support troops from a suboptimal spot further away could have a very real impact on casualty rate in a conflict. So I think you do really have to quantify the tradeoffs here to say if one is better than the other.
- kaikai 7y agoIt is a big blip, and they talk about it in the article.