5 ms·

How do we reconcile this with the study which found that low dose radiation surrounding atomic bomb detonation was protective? Low-dose radiation from A-bombs

How do we reconcile this with the study which found that low dose radiation surrounding atomic bomb detonation was protective? Low-dose radiation from A-bombs elongated lifespan and reduced cancer mortality relative to un-irradiated individuals https://genesenvironment.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41021-018-0114-3 https://genesenvironment.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/...

kortex 3y ago
I'm guessing it might have something to do with the "impulse curve" of the radiation. Atom bomb would look like a spike with exponential decay. This study looks at constant low-grade exposure. It might be that a single main radiation event (if it doesn't acutely kill or sicken you too bad) causes an inflammatory response and increased mutation detection, while constant low-grade provides many more opportunities for errors to slip through the cracks.
psychphysic 3y ago
It's in the article
api 3y ago
Different forms of radiation maybe?
cududa 3y ago
This is one study. There have been endless studies showing the negative effects of people near the Trinity test site. In fact, the government still pays out money to victims. This is a nonsense study that was never reproduced. Moreover, Japan provided extraordinary health care to victims that survived the bombings. I'm as pro-nuclear energy as you can get, but trying to hand wave away the dangers of radiation exposure is actively detrimental to the cause. https://www.justice.gov/civil/common/reca https://www.justice.gov/civil/common/reca
- pazimzadeh 3y ago
  Those things are not in disagreement with each other. It could just be that the bomb was a selection event which selected people who have the best ability to repair DNA, which protects from cancer-causing mutations in general. Plus, the specific amount of radiation that is protective vs. cancer would probably only exist at a specific distance from the detonation site. So, even if the study is 100% accurate and reproducible, in no way is it an argument for dropping more bombs. You can't throw away data because you think someone could theoretically use it to support a bad idea.

kortex 3y ago

I'm guessing it might have something to do with the "impulse curve" of the radiation. Atom bomb would look like a spike with exponential decay. This study looks at constant low-grade exposure. It might be that a single main radiation event (if it doesn't acutely kill or sicken you too bad) causes an inflammatory response and increased mutation detection, while constant low-grade provides many more opportunities for errors to slip through the cracks.

psychphysic 3y ago

It's in the article

api 3y ago

Different forms of radiation maybe?

cududa 3y ago

This is one study. There have been endless studies showing the negative effects of people near the Trinity test site. In fact, the government still pays out money to victims. This is a nonsense study that was never reproduced. Moreover, Japan provided extraordinary health care to victims that survived the bombings. I'm as pro-nuclear energy as you can get, but trying to hand wave away the dangers of radiation exposure is actively detrimental to the cause. https://www.justice.gov/civil/common/reca https://www.justice.gov/civil/common/reca

pazimzadeh 3y ago
Those things are not in disagreement with each other. It could just be that the bomb was a selection event which selected people who have the best ability to repair DNA, which protects from cancer-causing mutations in general. Plus, the specific amount of radiation that is protective vs. cancer would probably only exist at a specific distance from the detonation site. So, even if the study is 100% accurate and reproducible, in no way is it an argument for dropping more bombs. You can't throw away data because you think someone could theoretically use it to support a bad idea.