sandwall

16 ms·

121.
by sandwall 8y ago
They're rocks that someone undoubtedly collected from the surrounding area. Radioactive rocks, emitting low levels of mostly self-shielded radiation. Not great, but not a disaster deserving of national news.
122.
by sandwall 8y ago
I'm also surprised that others were quick to shoot the hormesis messenger. This is very well established mechanism of action. Priming DNA repair pathways acts as a protection from further exposures. However, and this is my take -- ther
123.
by sandwall 8y ago
LNT is lawyer science, low dose radiation risk (cancer induction) is stochastic. There is already a high prevalence of cancer in society. To protect against possible litigation we eliminate sources as a possible induction points. However, i
124.
by sandwall 8y ago
Science is not the regulation of the unknown. So, I dont understand your position at all. And not court of law, by evidence and observation, i.e. science.
125.
by sandwall 8y ago
You're assuming that an unknown risk is _worth_ spending money on to regulate. Don't know if there are boogey men, better protect against them. Costs be damned.
126.
by sandwall 8y ago
Airline workers are exposed to more radiation than "radiation workers." No regulations, and no alarmist theories of risk. -- Not saying it shouldn't be regulated, just that the regulations are inordinately strict and out of l
127.
by sandwall 8y ago
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6043938/
128.
by sandwall 8y ago
Roentgens are historical units of exposure, it's simply what a lot of older meters read. Roentgens can be assumed to safely equal RADs (although they don't, conversion is less than 1 for kV), the historical unit for "Radiatio
129.
by sandwall 8y ago
As correctly pointed out by other readers, this is a non-issue and complete overreaction. All feeding into misconceptions and irrational fear of radiation. The "safety professional" was out of his depth and clearly undereducated a
130.
by sandwall 8y ago
100% -- Awesome call out on confirmation bias. Definitely reserve judgement. I didn't blink at Hegseth's irrational remark, due to my own biases... excerpt from usa today: Hegseth says the joke is a call-out to germ obsessors to l
131.
by sandwall 8y ago
From a communication with O'Conner: "Please tell me the ministry of information was just a flippant remark -- I hope that you will never promote such an idea. It sounds great, in a world run by honest individuals. But, No - not ev
132.
by sandwall 8y ago
That's getting deep... Industry has specific problems, scientific findings are often ancillary to other work, i.e. problem solving. Can't tell people to stop solving problems and making discoveries. Or can you???
133.
by sandwall 8y ago
Decent article and probably a good book (that will only be read by those who need it least). However, this idea is terrible: O’Connor: Maybe we should have something like a ministry of information to decide what’s true.
134.
by sandwall 8y ago
PhD in Nuclear Engineering (Medical Physics) -- I wouldn't trade my years of study (play) for anything. I was blessed with a wonderful committee chair (and great committee members! beware! choose wisely, these people can make or break