Interesting: a negative correlation between altitude and cancer in the U.S. (one also exists for obesity) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3578453/ …
@JayMan471 @simplic10 Very interesting, though the basis for the radiation figure seems dodgy.
-
-
@St_Rev@simplic10 It is correlational. What do you expect? ;) -
@JayMan471@simplic10 Also of course they're doing a regression against three variables that themselves are almost completely correlated...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@St_Rev@JayMan471@simplic10 Radiation hormesis has been observed before. http://archive.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller12.html … http://www.scienceboard.net/community/perspectives.122.html … Summary on request. -
@Alrenous Am aware of the literature. I mean their actual numbers, e.g. mrem = 0 from 0-99 feet and mrem = feet/100 after. Makes no sense. -
@St_Rev I don't see a problem. -
@Alrenous Look at the table carefully. 2 problems: 1) Formula makes mrem go 0, 0, 0, ..., 0, 1.00, 1.01, 1.02... which is stupid. -
@St_Rev <1 mrem is certainly far less than the noise in the 200 mrem background. Though they should also have dropped the decimals higher up -
@Alrenous That's another thing. Cosmic radiation is small fraction of total exposure, maybe 10%. They get an r of nearly .5?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@St_Rev@JayMan471 Right, bc no accounting of geology or its own correl w elevation? -
@simplic10@JayMan471 a) geology b) radiation at sea level isn't zero!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.