3 ms·

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

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]

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]