There are more concerns with radiation than just cancer risk.
And until we better understand this self-repair mechanism, we shouldn't assume everyone has the same risk curve.
post
Perhaps this is true, however it's a slippery slope. "Don't mind my leaky reactor. If anything it's good for you, a little bit of extra radiation reduces your risk of cancer."
Honestly OP this is such a weird message to be pushing. Are you heavily invested in nuclear or something?
replies:
The scientific community is not a unified body, so having scientists questioning any scientific model does not seem like a "wow" moment. But, when the discourse starts including strong vocabulary, admittedly I start questioning/researching claims. And I appreciate it when studies conclude by saying things like: cautious of interpretation is needed, or further studies are warranted, etc.
Apart from that, sure, maybe the LNT model needs some re-evaluation, maybe not - I dunno, time will tell. Still, to my understanding, one problem with ionising radiation is that the dosage received by people is not always as tightly controlled as needed for it to be safe, despite all efforts. Not even in work environments.
For example:
- This recent meta-analysis about occupational radiation exposure and risk of thyroid cancer from 2024 saying:
A total of six studies (covering 3,409,717 individuals), which were published between 2006 and 2021 from 4 countries met the inclusion criteria. (...) Pooled analyses indicated that occupational radiation exposure was associated with a 67% higher risk of thyroid cancer
- And this article from 2024 about a Lancet research, called: New study provides crucial insights into radiation exposure’s impact on cancer risk - Updated findings to a long-term international study on workers in the nuclear sector.
The researchers assembled a cohort of more than 300,000 radiation-monitored workers from France, the United Kingdom and the United States, employed at nuclear facilities between 1944 and 2016. (...) The study revealed a positive association between prolonged low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation and mortality from these hematological cancers. The study concluded that health risk remains low at low exposure levels. Nevertheless, the evidence of associations between total radiation exposure and multiple myeloma and myelodysplastic syndromes signals the necessity for future radiation studies to expand the discussion on radiation protection and occupational safety measures on a global scale.
5 comments in c/videos@lemmy.world view that post
I found this very compelling, but when he started praising the current presidential administration it began sounding more like libertarian anti-regulation propaganda than a legitimate critique.
The sources seem good so there's merit for review, but I don't think the solution is "assume everyone has the same level of biological repair ability and abolish the current safety measures of the industry".
Cancer is also not the only harmful thing radiation does - you can also get infertility, birth defects, etc at lower doses.
replies:
He tries to argue that evolution would disprove radiation damage, but what is beneficial to the population can be detrimental to the individual. If you have procreated before developing cancer, you have passed on your genes, that's an evolutionary success.
Other than that, the data showed is intriguing.
I wish the people downvoting would explain why, though.
Whoa!
Thank you for sharing, I'm living at 11,200 ft right now, very likely receiving higher doses of radiation coincidentally, and this video and especially it's included data that I had no knowledge of whatsoever previously, has literally changed how I see every part of the world that has to do with radiation.
Fascinating, reassuring, fascinating.
I asked everyone I knew in the medical field about Fukushima after it happened, literal doctors, about why there were no radioactive casualties and I got so many answers that didn't fit.
And here's the answer, LNT.
Crazy.
all 6 comments