The article flat-out lies about achieving radiation immunity. Claims like these are extremely representative examples of misleading sensationalism. There is sim

The article flat-out lies about achieving radiation immunity. Claims like these are extremely representative examples of misleading sensationalism. There is simply no room for discussion about the central point: the article is making statements that are provably wrong. After that come the smaller claims they make, several of which sound highly dubious to me, especially your favorite one here: > "'It's not that we're blocking radiation from hitting the tissue,' he says. 'Somehow...they repair themselves, and go about their business.'" I strongly suspect there is no data to support this statement. We have known about small-scale repairs for a few years now, but this statement goes far beyond that. With the radiation doses involved, this phenomenon would require the reconstruction of information that is quite simply lost from the genome. Of course it is possible that many of these cells "go about their business", but that's not the same as assuming they have somehow repaired themselves. As far as being "automatically credited on this site" I think you should give the other users a little more credit, and perhaps tone down your blanket judgements a little at the same time. Just because I made a few "scientific-sounding arguments" doesn't mean I'm automatically wrong. The article claims immunity from radiation which is total gibberish. As far as the alleged complete self-repair goes, there are plenty of reasons to be extremely weary about this as well. By the way, I think I made it clear in the original post how important research like this is. At the same time I believe it's even more important not to misrepresent findings.