4 ms·

I really dislike the way various "skeptic" communities tend to rally around "X thing is safe/maybe actually good". Like global warming is another example. Sci

by paulmd 3y ago

I really dislike the way various "skeptic" communities tend to rally around "X thing is safe/maybe actually good". Like global warming is another example. Science already tends to be very conservative and build a lot of bias towards the null hypothesis. And then amateur skeptics take that and add even further bias towards null/maybe-actually-good. Maybe global warming will make the plants grow better (no), maybe it won't do anything at all (no)! These very faint studies around things like radiation hormesis get blown into loud dissent that "maybe radiation actually good?". But god forbid you ask them to wear a mask to prevent the spread of a deadly disease, they want to see long-term studies in triplicate with massive p-factors.

stefantalpalaru 3y ago
[dead]
talldatethrow 3y ago
My parents have owned homes and grown many food plants in many cold coastal climates near water (let's say Oregon) and in hot valley climates (ca central valley) where there is definitely less water. Things grow much better in the warmer area, but you have to water like crazy. I personally do wonder if we couldn't grow food where the water is, if only those areas weren't as cold as they currently are. Obviously makes you wonder if the rainfall in those areas would still stay.
- Retric 3y ago
  Cold northern climates are cold because they get less sunlight which then translates into lower temperatures. Simply increasing temperature wouldn’t provide more sunlight in the spring and fall which means the growing seasons don’t actually expand nearly as much as you might think. Also, we can grow stuff as far north as Canada while the equator runs though South America. People used to Mercator projections get a wildly incorrect view of what earth’s surface looks like, but in reality the loss of farmland wildly outweighs any possible gains.
  - talldatethrow 3y ago
    It can't just be the sun. Growing tomatoes in a yard in Marin even has different time tables and IMO yield than it does in the valley just east of it.
    - Modified3019 3y ago
      Yeah it’s not just available sunlight, though that is a significant one. Another factor in plant growth is that chemical reactions happen “faster” the greater the temperature. While temperature doesn’t have as an extreme direct effect on plants as it does microbes, the effect is still absolutely there.
pfdietz 3y ago
The hilarious thing is that hormesis, taken seriously, would make one think the risk curve has a negative second derivative, as this study suggests it does. So a hormesis fan should have been suggesting LNT was underestimating the danger of low dose radiation.
- snarkconjecture 3y ago
  All of the graphs in the literature suggest a positive second derivative. Why do you say negative? AIUI the model is that hormesis kicks in even for extremely small amounts of radiation, but has a limited effect and is overwhelmed by the negative effects of larger amounts.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    I say negative because that's what this study is suggesting -- the slope of the curve is higher at lower dose than at higher doses.
    - queuebert 3y ago
      That doesn't mean negative. The curve could be flat, then steeply rises to match LNT at some point.
      - pfdietz 3y ago
        It means that somewhere the second derivative must be negative (proof: take the derivative, then apply the mean value theorem of calculus)
        queuebert 3y ago
        You're correct of course. I read that as first derivative for some reason.
- scythe 3y ago
  No it wouldn't. The hormesis hypothesis proposes that the body's repair mechanism from a low dose of radiation yields benefits that outweigh the damage of the radiation. Eventually those internal repair mechanisms are overwhelmed, leading to a positive second derivative. There is no specific evidence for hormesis (i.e. evidence lacking good alternative explanations) nor are there reasonable proposed mechanisms by which this would happen. But we should be clear about what it says.
User23 3y ago
Radiation hormesis isn’t a fringe theory though[1]. Now it may not be correct I can’t speak to that. I do know though that many reputable scientists consider it a possibility. The body produces useful adaptations to pretty much every other stressor in sufficiently low doses so why would radiation be different, especially given that life evolved in the presence thereof. Edit: I wouldn’t be shocked though if the typical background dose is close to the maximum hormetic exposure and all but the smallest additional dosage starts the slide down the curve. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33420860/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33420860/
peteradio 3y ago
Why do you think a skeptic of one thing automatically subscribes them to all skeptical theories?
- mhh__ 3y ago
  Of those who speak their views on such things they are often very well correlated.
  - peteradio 3y ago
    So what? I'm not really seeing the relation of masks to radiation, those are two orthogonal beliefs and bringing them up together is something of an ad hominem on a strawman.
altrigjtroll 3y ago
Its pretty well known that increases in CO2 aka global warming do cause plants to grow better. The world is getting greener. The more C02 the more plants grow.
VancouverMan 3y ago
> But god forbid you ask them to wear a mask to prevent the spread of a deadly disease, they want to see long-term studies in triplicate with massive p-factors. That's a strange example to use to try to back up your argument, especially considering the data and observations we now have available to us. It's scientifically established at this point that those who questioned masking were absolutely correct: masking did not have a significant preventative, nor even mitigative, impact on case counts. What might be among some of the largest and most extensive scientific experiments ever performed confirm this. For example, tens of millions of people across Canada were forced to mask for well over a year in most regions, and two straight years in Toronto (the fourth-most populous city in North America). Yet, despite masking being universal in public for an extended duration, there were multiple significant increases and decreases in case counts over time in such regions. Had masking been effective at preventing, or even just mitigating, the spread, then those observed case count fluctuations would not have happened to begin with. Even scientific observation as basic as watching masked individuals outdoors in colder autumn and winter temperatures showed why masking was ineffective: notable and visible clouds of water vapour would be expelled with each breath the masked individuals took, despite the masks supposedly limiting or preventing that from happening. For most of the widely-used masks, and even respirators as commonly worn, the vapour would often be concentrated as it exited the mask and was directed through gaps where it contacted the wearer's face. In busier urban settings, this would effectively expose those in the vicinity to a concentrated dose of another individual's breath. Masks that didn't prevent egress of such vapour also didn't prevent ingress. The same effect was happening indoors, and during warmer conditions, but just not as easily observable as during colder temperatures. So, it's scientifically established at this point that there is no epidemiological nor physical basis to support masking. Maybe there's a better example you could have found to support your argument.

by paulmd 3y ago

stefantalpalaru 3y ago

[dead]

talldatethrow 3y ago

My parents have owned homes and grown many food plants in many cold coastal climates near water (let's say Oregon) and in hot valley climates (ca central valley) where there is definitely less water. Things grow much better in the warmer area, but you have to water like crazy. I personally do wonder if we couldn't grow food where the water is, if only those areas weren't as cold as they currently are. Obviously makes you wonder if the rainfall in those areas would still stay.

Retric 3y ago
Cold northern climates are cold because they get less sunlight which then translates into lower temperatures. Simply increasing temperature wouldn’t provide more sunlight in the spring and fall which means the growing seasons don’t actually expand nearly as much as you might think. Also, we can grow stuff as far north as Canada while the equator runs though South America. People used to Mercator projections get a wildly incorrect view of what earth’s surface looks like, but in reality the loss of farmland wildly outweighs any possible gains.
- talldatethrow 3y ago
  It can't just be the sun. Growing tomatoes in a yard in Marin even has different time tables and IMO yield than it does in the valley just east of it.
  - Modified3019 3y ago
    Yeah it’s not just available sunlight, though that is a significant one. Another factor in plant growth is that chemical reactions happen “faster” the greater the temperature. While temperature doesn’t have as an extreme direct effect on plants as it does microbes, the effect is still absolutely there.

pfdietz 3y ago

The hilarious thing is that hormesis, taken seriously, would make one think the risk curve has a negative second derivative, as this study suggests it does. So a hormesis fan should have been suggesting LNT was underestimating the danger of low dose radiation.

snarkconjecture 3y ago
All of the graphs in the literature suggest a positive second derivative. Why do you say negative? AIUI the model is that hormesis kicks in even for extremely small amounts of radiation, but has a limited effect and is overwhelmed by the negative effects of larger amounts.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  I say negative because that's what this study is suggesting -- the slope of the curve is higher at lower dose than at higher doses.
  - queuebert 3y ago
    That doesn't mean negative. The curve could be flat, then steeply rises to match LNT at some point.
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      It means that somewhere the second derivative must be negative (proof: take the derivative, then apply the mean value theorem of calculus)
      - queuebert 3y ago
        You're correct of course. I read that as first derivative for some reason.
scythe 3y ago
No it wouldn't. The hormesis hypothesis proposes that the body's repair mechanism from a low dose of radiation yields benefits that outweigh the damage of the radiation. Eventually those internal repair mechanisms are overwhelmed, leading to a positive second derivative. There is no specific evidence for hormesis (i.e. evidence lacking good alternative explanations) nor are there reasonable proposed mechanisms by which this would happen. But we should be clear about what it says.

User23 3y ago

Radiation hormesis isn’t a fringe theory though[1]. Now it may not be correct I can’t speak to that. I do know though that many reputable scientists consider it a possibility. The body produces useful adaptations to pretty much every other stressor in sufficiently low doses so why would radiation be different, especially given that life evolved in the presence thereof. Edit: I wouldn’t be shocked though if the typical background dose is close to the maximum hormetic exposure and all but the smallest additional dosage starts the slide down the curve. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33420860/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33420860/

peteradio 3y ago

Why do you think a skeptic of one thing automatically subscribes them to all skeptical theories?

mhh__ 3y ago
Of those who speak their views on such things they are often very well correlated.
- peteradio 3y ago
  So what? I'm not really seeing the relation of masks to radiation, those are two orthogonal beliefs and bringing them up together is something of an ad hominem on a strawman.

altrigjtroll 3y ago

Its pretty well known that increases in CO2 aka global warming do cause plants to grow better. The world is getting greener. The more C02 the more plants grow.

VancouverMan 3y ago

> But god forbid you ask them to wear a mask to prevent the spread of a deadly disease, they want to see long-term studies in triplicate with massive p-factors. That's a strange example to use to try to back up your argument, especially considering the data and observations we now have available to us. It's scientifically established at this point that those who questioned masking were absolutely correct: masking did not have a significant preventative, nor even mitigative, impact on case counts. What might be among some of the largest and most extensive scientific experiments ever performed confirm this. For example, tens of millions of people across Canada were forced to mask for well over a year in most regions, and two straight years in Toronto (the fourth-most populous city in North America). Yet, despite masking being universal in public for an extended duration, there were multiple significant increases and decreases in case counts over time in such regions. Had masking been effective at preventing, or even just mitigating, the spread, then those observed case count fluctuations would not have happened to begin with. Even scientific observation as basic as watching masked individuals outdoors in colder autumn and winter temperatures showed why masking was ineffective: notable and visible clouds of water vapour would be expelled with each breath the masked individuals took, despite the masks supposedly limiting or preventing that from happening. For most of the widely-used masks, and even respirators as commonly worn, the vapour would often be concentrated as it exited the mask and was directed through gaps where it contacted the wearer's face. In busier urban settings, this would effectively expose those in the vicinity to a concentrated dose of another individual's breath. Masks that didn't prevent egress of such vapour also didn't prevent ingress. The same effect was happening indoors, and during warmer conditions, but just not as easily observable as during colder temperatures. So, it's scientifically established at this point that there is no epidemiological nor physical basis to support masking. Maybe there's a better example you could have found to support your argument.