3 ms·
Maybe because the background radiation is just one of many, many contributing causes of cancer? For instance, airline pilots are exposed to more radiation than
by gnaffle 13y ago
Maybe because the background radiation is just one of many, many contributing causes of cancer?
For instance, airline pilots are exposed to more radiation than the average worker. But they also have a low percentage of smokers, and in order to keep their medical license they need to be in fairly good health. So, apart from skin cancer, they have lower than average rates of cancer compared to the general population:
https://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/magazine/2001/March2001_HealthAmongPilots.htm https://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/magazine/2001/March2001_He...
- tptacek 13y agoWhat do you propose is the lifestyle difference shared by the population of Denver that offsets their doubled exposure to low-level radiation? Obviously cancer has many causes, but to the extent Denver shares those causes with Oregon, they should wash out and reveal Denver's radiation-linked cancer (which, after all, you're basically arguing exists).
- gnaffle 13y agoI was just pointing out a flaw in his reasoning. I didn't argue that it exists (and from what I gather from other comments, it doesn't). But if it did, it could be offset by any number of things, some of which might not be shared to the same extent with other cities. Or it might be that the baseline background radiation is so small that 2x that baseline is still statistically insignificant compared to other factors.
- tptacek 13y agoIf you believe the latter statement, then you also aren't alarmed by radiation in Japan, right?
- gnaffle 13y agoI don't believe anything in particular, that was just one of many potential explanations. That said, I'm not alarmed by the radiation in Japan, I'm more alarmed about the situation of the Fukushima plant and the problems they face with potential leakage into the groundwater (among other things).