5 ms·

Yes, that seems likely to be a large part of it. Maybe, the takeaway is that radiation in food or taken internally is more mutagenenic than radiation externall

Yes, that seems likely to be a large part of it. Maybe, the takeaway is that radiation in food or taken internally is more mutagenenic than radiation externally? Or that total exposure matters more than acute exposure? I called this a “surprising” finding and you know, surprising findings are the bedrock of discovery. Sadly I seem to have triggered a few people who can’t handle the fact that the world is an uncertain place we don’t completely understand. It must be hard to live in a world where being surprised is so threatening.

maratc 6y ago
It's hard for me to see why. It looks pretty much expected that creatures that stay in contaminated areas and consume contaminated food have more mutations than creatures that don't. What's so "surprising" about it?
- fallingfrog 6y ago
  Well, the radiation exposure was enough to kill several of those workers outright, and the rest had hugely elevated rates of cancer. In one instance the pregnant wife of one worker spent too much time with him and the radiation emanating from his body was enough to give her a miscarriage. And yet the article makes a very strong claim: all that radiation didn’t cause any rise in birth defects at all! That’s surprising. It certainly caused defects in the animals in the area, who didn’t have the insanely high exposure as the workers- albeit the workers were exposed for a shorter time. So something is going on here which I freely admit I don’t completely understand. I just thought of another possibility: all the workers who suffered that exposure were men. Perhaps, radiation on a developing fetus is mutagenic, but radiation exposure in sperm is less so, maybe the sperm that develop after the acute exposure is gone are normal!
  - maratc 6y ago
    > the radiation exposure was enough to kill several of those workers outright I gather no wildlife took part in putting the fires off. > the pregnant wife of one worker spent too much time with him and the radiation emanating from his body was enough to give her a miscarriage. Did you see that in the HBO Miniseries? "Lastly, there is the dangerous representation that, because one of the victims was radioactive, his pregnant wife endangered her unborn child by entering his hospital room. First, as discussed, none of the victims were radioactive—their exposures were almost exclusively external, not internal. More importantly, risk to a fetus from an exposure like this is infinitesimally small." [1] [1] https://cancerletter.com/filmtv/20190524_3/ https://cancerletter.com/filmtv/20190524_3/

maratc 6y ago

It's hard for me to see why. It looks pretty much expected that creatures that stay in contaminated areas and consume contaminated food have more mutations than creatures that don't. What's so "surprising" about it?

fallingfrog 6y ago
Well, the radiation exposure was enough to kill several of those workers outright, and the rest had hugely elevated rates of cancer. In one instance the pregnant wife of one worker spent too much time with him and the radiation emanating from his body was enough to give her a miscarriage. And yet the article makes a very strong claim: all that radiation didn’t cause any rise in birth defects at all! That’s surprising. It certainly caused defects in the animals in the area, who didn’t have the insanely high exposure as the workers- albeit the workers were exposed for a shorter time. So something is going on here which I freely admit I don’t completely understand. I just thought of another possibility: all the workers who suffered that exposure were men. Perhaps, radiation on a developing fetus is mutagenic, but radiation exposure in sperm is less so, maybe the sperm that develop after the acute exposure is gone are normal!
- maratc 6y ago
  > the radiation exposure was enough to kill several of those workers outright I gather no wildlife took part in putting the fires off. > the pregnant wife of one worker spent too much time with him and the radiation emanating from his body was enough to give her a miscarriage. Did you see that in the HBO Miniseries? "Lastly, there is the dangerous representation that, because one of the victims was radioactive, his pregnant wife endangered her unborn child by entering his hospital room. First, as discussed, none of the victims were radioactive—their exposures were almost exclusively external, not internal. More importantly, risk to a fetus from an exposure like this is infinitesimally small." [1] [1] https://cancerletter.com/filmtv/20190524_3/ https://cancerletter.com/filmtv/20190524_3/