4 ms·

Can’t it be like playing Russian roulette with a gun that has billions of chambers? The gun is always unsafe, but you will probably be fine? The higher the lev

Can’t it be like playing Russian roulette with a gun that has billions of chambers? The gun is always unsafe, but you will probably be fine? The higher the level, the more full chambers?

aidenn0 5y ago
That's also the linear no threshold model. The risk of dying increases linearly with the number of bullets you load. A different model suggests that very low levels are either benign or even helpful.
- emn13 5y ago
  I can't find any solid supporting sources that provide any evidence that there exists a positively safe dosage, but even the linear-no-threshold models suggest the effects of low dosages are small enough to be hard to measure; i.e. which model is correct is practically irrelevant for low enough (e.g. 1-10 mSv?) dosages.
  - aidenn0 5y ago
    Presumably there is some level of radiation at which if 100 million people were exposed to for 20 years, we would see measurable excess deaths with the linear no-threshold model, but not with other models. In particular the linear model treats chronic exposure as all the same; X amount for a week is the same as X/52 for a year.
    - emn13 5y ago
      Yeah, the linearity in the dose seems more plausible than the linearity in time; and I don't understand why the two dimensions necessarily would be intrinsically linked.
- ziddoap 5y ago
  >A different model suggests that very low levels are either benign or even helpful. Ah, the classic shoot yourself with small caliber bullets to build up an immunity against the larger caliber ones!
  - api 5y ago
    The radiation hormesis idea is controversial but that is a bad argument against it. Molecular scale events interacting with molecular scale DNA repair machinery is a different physical context than bullets. The body is hit by natural radiation all the time and so it has mechanisms for this. Not so much for macroscopic projectiles. The question is how these mechanisms behave and whether a small amount of radiation stimulates them… and then how much, for how long, etc. It’s a complex model with multiple systems and feedback loops.
    - ziddoap 5y ago
      >The radiation hormesis idea is controversial but that is a bad argument against it Jokes don't translate well in ASCII, sorry. It's a (I thought) well known meme.
- dspillett 5y ago
  > A different model suggests that very low levels are either benign Nothing in what others have said suggests low levels are deadly or even likely to be damaging, at leas not over the time frame of a human life as defined by the many things that can take us out. > or even helpful. A larger amount of something being damaging does not rule out a small amount being helpful, there just comes a point when the potential danger starts to outweigh the potential benefits. Water is very beneficial, necessary in fact, but too much of it over a short time will kill you.

Can’t it be like playing Russian roulette with a gun that has billions of chambers? The gun is always unsafe, but you will probably be fine? The higher the level, the more full chambers?

aidenn0 5y ago

That's also the linear no threshold model. The risk of dying increases linearly with the number of bullets you load. A different model suggests that very low levels are either benign or even helpful.

emn13 5y ago
I can't find any solid supporting sources that provide any evidence that there exists a positively safe dosage, but even the linear-no-threshold models suggest the effects of low dosages are small enough to be hard to measure; i.e. which model is correct is practically irrelevant for low enough (e.g. 1-10 mSv?) dosages.
- aidenn0 5y ago
  Presumably there is some level of radiation at which if 100 million people were exposed to for 20 years, we would see measurable excess deaths with the linear no-threshold model, but not with other models. In particular the linear model treats chronic exposure as all the same; X amount for a week is the same as X/52 for a year.
  - emn13 5y ago
    Yeah, the linearity in the dose seems more plausible than the linearity in time; and I don't understand why the two dimensions necessarily would be intrinsically linked.
ziddoap 5y ago
>A different model suggests that very low levels are either benign or even helpful. Ah, the classic shoot yourself with small caliber bullets to build up an immunity against the larger caliber ones!
- api 5y ago
  The radiation hormesis idea is controversial but that is a bad argument against it. Molecular scale events interacting with molecular scale DNA repair machinery is a different physical context than bullets. The body is hit by natural radiation all the time and so it has mechanisms for this. Not so much for macroscopic projectiles. The question is how these mechanisms behave and whether a small amount of radiation stimulates them… and then how much, for how long, etc. It’s a complex model with multiple systems and feedback loops.
  - ziddoap 5y ago
    >The radiation hormesis idea is controversial but that is a bad argument against it Jokes don't translate well in ASCII, sorry. It's a (I thought) well known meme.
dspillett 5y ago
> A different model suggests that very low levels are either benign Nothing in what others have said suggests low levels are deadly or even likely to be damaging, at leas not over the time frame of a human life as defined by the many things that can take us out. > or even helpful. A larger amount of something being damaging does not rule out a small amount being helpful, there just comes a point when the potential danger starts to outweigh the potential benefits. Water is very beneficial, necessary in fact, but too much of it over a short time will kill you.