4 ms·

the moron who wrote the article doesn't know what he's talking about: >Nuclear technology cures countless cancer patients every day - and a radiation dose give

the moron who wrote the article doesn't know what he's talking about: >Nuclear technology cures countless cancer patients every day - and a radiation dose given for radiotherapy in hospital is no different in principle to a similar dose received in the environment. From http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/coping/radiation-therapy-and-you/page6 http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/coping/radiation-therapy-... : "Late side effects may first occur 6 or more months after radiation therapy is over. They vary by the part of your body that was treated and the dose of radiation you received. Late side effects may include infertility, joint problems, lymphedema, mouth problems, and secondary cancer."

shadowsun7 16y ago
That moron who wrote the article is a nuclear and medical physicist at the University of Oxford. From the HN comment guidelines: When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Judging from your comment history, you seem to enjoy calling names more than you do providing arguments.
- VladRussian 16y ago
  your post didn't provide any contra argument, instead you went for personal attack and "karma-bombing".
  - shadowsun7 16y ago
    A counter-argument to what, exactly? You took a statement that he made, concluded that he was a 'moron who does not know what he's talk about', and then backed that summary statement up with a lifted quote from cancer.gov that had nothing to do to the original statement? Allison's statement is accurate: a single radiation dose is similar in principle to one received from the environment. His over-arching point is that we don't regard radiation doses in the hospital as scary, taboo and dangerous, and yet we regard any environmental dose as toxic and worth panicking over. The rest of the article lays down his arguments for this view.
    - VladRussian 16y ago
      >Allison's statement is accurate: a single radiation dose is similar in principle to one received from the environment. why do you repeat this utter and obviously incorrect crap? do you really think that localized deep tissue dose has the same health effect as if it was received whole-body? Do you just happen to possess the winning combination of being uneducated and too lazy to Google things up? If you ever make you brain moving, try to think how it can be "similar in principle" when 20S deposited to healthy tissue around cancer (out of total 60-80S dose the patient receives) rarely kills the patient while 4-5S received "environmentally" during comparable period of time would almost always be lethal. The article looks like it was written by somebody who is uneducated and has problems with logic, i.e. moron. Too bad it was written by a professional with an agenda. Intellectual dishonesty is much worse than plain stupidity and ignorance.
      - shadowsun7 16y ago
        All this name calling makes me sad. There was a time when trolls like you were banned from HN. Sigh. How times have changed.
        VladRussian 16y ago
        You post an illogical, intelligence insulting crap and become "sad" when somebody calls the crap out. You're right - the HN debate culture has gone down. The strongest and most logical argument you've managed in the discussion on radiation doses [non]equivalency is to call me a troll.
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
gommm 16y ago
And this is with a dose of around 20,000mSv. He recommends setting the limit at 100 mSv/year with a lifelong limit of 5,000 mSv. I also agree shadowsun7, you could cut down on the name calling and be a bit more civilized in your comments. It doesn't contribute anything to the conversation but weakens your message.
- VladRussian 16y ago
  >And this is with a dose of around 20,000mSv. He recommends setting the limit at 100 mSv/year with a lifelong limit of 5,000 mSv. this article is a clear propaganda piece designed to evoke such primitive logical conclusions. But even primitive logical analysis by a rudimentary educated person shouldn't have missed the significant difference between localized deep-tissue dose delivery ("meat cooking") in the radiotherapy where 2-3S is delivered per session normally without any lethal risk and 25-50% lethality of 2-3S delivered whole-body (100% lethal if repeated several times during period of several weeks). >be a bit more civilized in your comments yep, taking an intentionally misleading propaganda by a professional for a blabbing of a moron isn't that civilized.
  - shadowsun7 16y ago
    Thank you for your time. You should go back to Reddit now.

shadowsun7 16y ago

That moron who wrote the article is a nuclear and medical physicist at the University of Oxford. From the HN comment guidelines: When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Judging from your comment history, you seem to enjoy calling names more than you do providing arguments.

VladRussian 16y ago
your post didn't provide any contra argument, instead you went for personal attack and "karma-bombing".
- shadowsun7 16y ago
  A counter-argument to what, exactly? You took a statement that he made, concluded that he was a 'moron who does not know what he's talk about', and then backed that summary statement up with a lifted quote from cancer.gov that had nothing to do to the original statement? Allison's statement is accurate: a single radiation dose is similar in principle to one received from the environment. His over-arching point is that we don't regard radiation doses in the hospital as scary, taboo and dangerous, and yet we regard any environmental dose as toxic and worth panicking over. The rest of the article lays down his arguments for this view.
  - VladRussian 16y ago
    >Allison's statement is accurate: a single radiation dose is similar in principle to one received from the environment. why do you repeat this utter and obviously incorrect crap? do you really think that localized deep tissue dose has the same health effect as if it was received whole-body? Do you just happen to possess the winning combination of being uneducated and too lazy to Google things up? If you ever make you brain moving, try to think how it can be "similar in principle" when 20S deposited to healthy tissue around cancer (out of total 60-80S dose the patient receives) rarely kills the patient while 4-5S received "environmentally" during comparable period of time would almost always be lethal. The article looks like it was written by somebody who is uneducated and has problems with logic, i.e. moron. Too bad it was written by a professional with an agenda. Intellectual dishonesty is much worse than plain stupidity and ignorance.
    - shadowsun7 16y ago
      All this name calling makes me sad. There was a time when trolls like you were banned from HN. Sigh. How times have changed.
      - VladRussian 16y ago
        You post an illogical, intelligence insulting crap and become "sad" when somebody calls the crap out. You're right - the HN debate culture has gone down. The strongest and most logical argument you've managed in the discussion on radiation doses [non]equivalency is to call me a troll.
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]

gommm 16y ago

And this is with a dose of around 20,000mSv. He recommends setting the limit at 100 mSv/year with a lifelong limit of 5,000 mSv. I also agree shadowsun7, you could cut down on the name calling and be a bit more civilized in your comments. It doesn't contribute anything to the conversation but weakens your message.

VladRussian 16y ago
>And this is with a dose of around 20,000mSv. He recommends setting the limit at 100 mSv/year with a lifelong limit of 5,000 mSv. this article is a clear propaganda piece designed to evoke such primitive logical conclusions. But even primitive logical analysis by a rudimentary educated person shouldn't have missed the significant difference between localized deep-tissue dose delivery ("meat cooking") in the radiotherapy where 2-3S is delivered per session normally without any lethal risk and 25-50% lethality of 2-3S delivered whole-body (100% lethal if repeated several times during period of several weeks). >be a bit more civilized in your comments yep, taking an intentionally misleading propaganda by a professional for a blabbing of a moron isn't that civilized.
- shadowsun7 16y ago
  Thank you for your time. You should go back to Reddit now.