3 ms·

You 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

by cududa 3y ago

You 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 ago
I'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
    [deleted]
pazimzadeh 3y ago
> You have no idea what you're talking about Show, don't tell > exposing yourself to a massive dose of radiation if you're so sure you're right Are you aware that radiation is one of the treatments for cancer? Are you aware that neoplastic growths are constantly popping up and being checked by your immune system, and that "cancer" illness only happens when these growths are not controlled by the immune system? Are you aware that radiation works by destroying cells which are dividing rapidly through DNA damage? Given these facts, is it really surprising that there is a specific amount of radiation (but not more) would lead to reduced cancer mortality relative to un-irradiated individuals?