4 ms·

> Ah, the linear no threshold theory of radiation. i wasnt aware this was contested. its what i was taught in the us nuclear navy. > If background radiation i

> Ah, the linear no threshold theory of radiation. i wasnt aware this was contested. its what i was taught in the us nuclear navy. > If background radiation is everywhere, how can there be no safe dose. this is not a self-evident refutation and is a bad argument. cancer is the 2nd leading cause of death in the US, meaning there is an even higher nonlethal occurance of cancer. this is not all radiations doing, but its hardly obvious that bathing in radiation your whole life is a "safe dose"

formerly_proven 5y ago
LNT is controversial because there is not enough data to support it. The data that we do have doesn't support any low-dose model conclusively as far as I know. The upside of this is the effects have to be very small, so it basically doesn't matter, because the risk of low-doses is effectively zero regardless the theory. The problem with LNT in terms of science communication is it's easy to make it sound as-if the risk isn't effectively zero.
- kryogen1c 5y ago
  > it basically doesn't matter, because the risk of low-doses is effectively zero regardless this is exactly what i said in my original comment. I looked up competing LNT models. TIL about radiation hormesis. theoretically, near-zero but >0 levels of radiation activate dormant repair mechanisms that not only repair radiation damage, but also non-radiation damage; this results in a healthier host. interesting. having thought about this for all of 30 seconds, i wonder if both models arent simultaneously correct. if most radiation damage is repairable, activating dormant repair mechanisms with tiny amounts of radiation would be a net benefit. however, if there exists any possible irrepairable damage in any cell anywhere on your body regardless of otherwise functioning repair processes - which i dont know to be true but seems likely - then LNT could also be true concurrently with radiation hormesis.

formerly_proven 5y ago

LNT is controversial because there is not enough data to support it. The data that we do have doesn't support any low-dose model conclusively as far as I know. The upside of this is the effects have to be very small, so it basically doesn't matter, because the risk of low-doses is effectively zero regardless the theory. The problem with LNT in terms of science communication is it's easy to make it sound as-if the risk isn't effectively zero.

kryogen1c 5y ago
> it basically doesn't matter, because the risk of low-doses is effectively zero regardless this is exactly what i said in my original comment. I looked up competing LNT models. TIL about radiation hormesis. theoretically, near-zero but >0 levels of radiation activate dormant repair mechanisms that not only repair radiation damage, but also non-radiation damage; this results in a healthier host. interesting. having thought about this for all of 30 seconds, i wonder if both models arent simultaneously correct. if most radiation damage is repairable, activating dormant repair mechanisms with tiny amounts of radiation would be a net benefit. however, if there exists any possible irrepairable damage in any cell anywhere on your body regardless of otherwise functioning repair processes - which i dont know to be true but seems likely - then LNT could also be true concurrently with radiation hormesis.