40 ms·

I understood LNT is already considered to be too pessimistic at low dose. Would this mean it is in fact optimistic? And low dose radiation is actually quite bad

• pfdietz 3y ago
  [flagged]
• kortex 3y ago
  I think the main takeaway is we probably should not put too much stock in a linear-time-invariant-cumulative model of radiation mapping to cancer risk. Sure it's the easiest to calculate, but that's the streetlamp search fallacy. It's far more likely that the shape of the radiation dose curve matters quite a bit on how the body responds. E.g. the difference between 10 discrete 1 Gy events, vs one 10 Gy event, vs 10 Gy absorbed over a year.
  • csours 3y ago
    This is something I don't understand about sunburn - If I'm exposed to 15 minutes straight of sunlight, I will burn, but in 2-5 minute chunks spread out over several hours, I can tolerate much more. Is there an equation for this? Like a small coefficient with a high power? 0.1*Te^4 ? Or am I wrong about how sunburn works? This one just shows time as a straight factor, no exponent: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6345802/#:~:text=However%2C%20temperature%20is%20not%20the,3%20s)16%2C17 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6345802/#:~:tex....
    • peteradio 3y ago
      Saturation. This impacts so many different systems. You can't really model it with simple polynomials, it requires step functions.