3 ms·
Yet low level radiation is now known to be dangerous. http://www.ianfairlie.org/news/recent-evidence-on-the-risks-of-very-low-level-radiation/ http://www.ianfa
by chinathrow 11y ago
Yet low level radiation is now known to be dangerous.
http://www.ianfairlie.org/news/recent-evidence-on-the-risks-of-very-low-level-radiation/ http://www.ianfairlie.org/news/recent-evidence-on-the-risks-...
"Just to make sure the point gets across, these studies mean that all children will receive about 1 mSv of gamma radiation from background radiation each year and this results in their leukemia risk being increased by 12%."
- digi_owl 11y agoAnd what is their baseline risk of leukemia? And are we talking across their lifetime (a whole lot of crap can kill them over their next 70 or so years) or within the next year?
- Vexs 11y agoSeriously, a 12% increase in a low number is not even statistically relevant. As it so often is, there is a relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1252/ https://xkcd.com/1252/
- carbocation 11y agoMore like, it may be statistically relevant, but may not be clinically relevant.
- dasil003 11y agoHow could it statistically significant but not be clinically relevant? Either you get it or you don't, and childhood leukemia fucking sucks (I should know, my mom was the manager of the Minneapolis Ronald McDonald House for 10 years and we lived on-site; many of my young childhood friends died as children).
- tptacek 11y agoIs the issue that "statistical relevance" is relative to measurements of radiation and "clinical relevance" is relative to impact on human health? Tiny amounts of radiation can be statistically relevant in environments that get no radiation, and yet have no impact on health.
- tedunangst 11y agoIsn't the point of background radiation that it's in the background and you can't avoid it? Where does one find a control group not exposed to background radiation?
- pygy_ 11y agoThe strength of the background radiation varies from place to place.
- tedunangst 11y agoI wouldn't use the phrase "all chuldren" in that case, but something more like "chuldren in high radiation areas".
- pygy_ 11y agoThat's bad writing from the blog author who's trying to paraphrase this: [...] the authors estimated that the excess risk of childhood leukaemia was 12% per millisievert of cumulative red bone marrow dose from background gamma radiation (Kendall et al, 2012). ... where (Kendall et al, 2012) refers to http://www.nature.com/leu/journal/v27/n1/full/leu2012151a.html http://www.nature.com/leu/journal/v27/n1/full/leu2012151a.ht....
- tedunangst 11y agoThat makes a lot more sense.
- tedunangst 11y agoThat was supposed to be children. My phone went weird.