4 ms·

> They state there is no scientific safe drinking level. They even compare it to radiation. The goal is to establish an unsafe level. it's like saying there is

> They state there is no scientific safe drinking level. They even compare it to radiation. The goal is to establish an unsafe level. it's like saying there is no safe speed to drive a car - sure that's technically true, but worthless to say. Which is ironic, because, while most people use the "Linear no-threshold" model for radiation, we know that small amounts of radiation are actually beneficial. The most charitable reason I can think of for why people still use the LNT model is because it's simple and robust. But that doesn't mean that it's the most accurate understanding that we have.

PartiallyTyped 4y ago
> Which is ironic, because, while most people use the "Linear no-threshold" model for radiation, we know that small amounts of radiation are actually beneficial. How could ionizing radiation be beneficial? Unless the argument is exposure to ultraviolet in order to get Vitamin D, I can’t imagine ionizing radiation to be beneficial in any way. Edit: > The good includes abundant evidence showing increased 1) physiologic performance, 2) immune competence, 3) health, and 4) mean lifespan. From the article in the comment below. Apparently in very low doses it stimulates the immune system and healthy cell reconstruction.
- nordsieck 4y ago
  > How could ionizing radiation be beneficial? I'm not going to pretend that I understand the reasons. But there have been a lot of studies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477686/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477686/
  - etothepii 4y ago
    Just because something does not work in theory does not mean that it does not work in practice.
  - hackandthink 4y ago
    I think before the atomic bomb radioactivity was widely considered as healthy. (maybe it was not as crazy as I thought) This is wild stuff: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180306-a-spa-where-patients-bathe-in-radiactive-water https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180306-a-spa-where-pati...
davidhbolton 4y ago
From the BMJ *British Medical Journal). "Analyses of the dose of alcohol consumed showed that 2.5–14.9 g alcohol (about ≤1 drink) per day was protective for all five outcomes compared with no alcohol (table 2⇑). For coronary heart disease outcomes, all levels of intake >2.5 g/day had similar degrees of risk reduction. " https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d671 https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d671 Heart Disease is a bigger killer than cancer.

PartiallyTyped 4y ago

> Which is ironic, because, while most people use the "Linear no-threshold" model for radiation, we know that small amounts of radiation are actually beneficial. How could ionizing radiation be beneficial? Unless the argument is exposure to ultraviolet in order to get Vitamin D, I can’t imagine ionizing radiation to be beneficial in any way. Edit: > The good includes abundant evidence showing increased 1) physiologic performance, 2) immune competence, 3) health, and 4) mean lifespan. From the article in the comment below. Apparently in very low doses it stimulates the immune system and healthy cell reconstruction.

nordsieck 4y ago
> How could ionizing radiation be beneficial? I'm not going to pretend that I understand the reasons. But there have been a lot of studies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477686/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477686/
- etothepii 4y ago
  Just because something does not work in theory does not mean that it does not work in practice.
- hackandthink 4y ago
  I think before the atomic bomb radioactivity was widely considered as healthy. (maybe it was not as crazy as I thought) This is wild stuff: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180306-a-spa-where-patients-bathe-in-radiactive-water https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180306-a-spa-where-pati...

davidhbolton 4y ago

From the BMJ *British Medical Journal). "Analyses of the dose of alcohol consumed showed that 2.5–14.9 g alcohol (about ≤1 drink) per day was protective for all five outcomes compared with no alcohol (table 2⇑). For coronary heart disease outcomes, all levels of intake >2.5 g/day had similar degrees of risk reduction. " https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d671 https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d671 Heart Disease is a bigger killer than cancer.