4 ms·
Low-dose radiation from A-bombs elongated lifespan and reduced cancer mortality relative to un-irradiated individuals https://genesenvironment.biomedcentral.co
by pazimzadeh 3y ago
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/...
- wnevets 3y agoDid this increase the safe dosage amount of radiation?
- pazimzadeh 3y agoThis shows that the idea that there is no safe level of radiation on principle is wrong.
- wnevets 3y agoI don't know if you're being serious or not.
- sixstringtheory 3y ago> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- wnevets 3y agoWhich of the two plausible interpretations is the strongest? Please enlighten me esteemed HN guideline expert. I am asking because I don't know the answer.
- sixstringtheory 3y agoIt's pretty obvious that the guidelines state you should treat them as though they're serious. You always have the option of not sending a response. The world will keep turning just fine without wnevets chiming in.
- wnevets 3y agoI find it incredibly difficult treat anyone who argues atomic bombs are good for your health seriously.
- pazimzadeh 3y agoSlow down.. "Low-dose radiation from A-bombs elongated lifespan and reduced cancer mortality relative to un-irradiated individual" Does not equal "A-bombs are good for your health" FYI, a small amount of DNA damage is thought to stimulate DNA repair pathways, which is protective. What's bad for you is massive amounts of damage that your body can't keep up with.
- moffkalast 3y agoIf that was in any way accepted then we'd have radiation inoculation treatments mandatory for everyone at a young age.
- pazimzadeh 3y agoAlternatively, decisions were made prior to knowing everything there is to know about radiation. Alternatively, there are trade-offs that would make mandatory radiation not a good idea. For example, infection risk, or auto-immune disease risk.
- cududa 3y agoYou have no idea what you're talking about, and the fact that you're so confident over your obscenely wrong conclusions makes you a dangerous person. How about going and exposing yourself to a massive dose of radiation if you're so sure you're right
- hgomersall 3y agoI'm not seeing conclusions, let alone confident conclusions. An interesting paper was linked to that apparently showed some survival benefit from A-bomb survivors. By all means, challenge the paper, but it's certainly interesting. It might not be radiation exposure that led to the increased survival rates but it could plausible be.
- wnevets 3y ago> I'm not seeing conclusions, let alone confident conclusions. You may want to check the other comments created that by person, for example this one. > This shows that the idea that there is no safe level of radiation on principle is wrong.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago