You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Oy, I see that Congress is going to have hearings on the radiation hormesis thesis, and the EPA is (contrary to most scientific and NAS opinion) recommending that low-levels of radiation be less regulated.https://apnews.com/6a573b6b020e453c90ecd5e84aa23f57?utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&__twitter_impression=true …
While thinking about who the hormesis model benefits, and who funds this research, run Ed Calabrese's name through the Tobacco Industry Legacy Docs database. https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/results/#q=calabrese&h=%7B%22hideDuplicates%22%3Atrue%2C%22hideFolders%22%3Atrue%7D&subsite=tobacco&cache=true&count=1912 …
I hate getting in discussions about hormesis, as an aside, because non-scientists are easily suckered into the hormesis agenda (because they like to believe it might be true, or something), and don't realize how skimpy the evidence is.
Hormesis advocates have done a good job of making it seem, on the Internet, like this is a mainstream idea. My discussions with, and readings of, health physicists and geneticists, suggest it is not at all.
Compounding this is that most people DO have a pretty terrible understanding about the risks of radiation, so it's easy to fall into the trap of, "most people exaggerate it, so maybe people on the total other side of the spectrum are right!" Which is just a cognitive error.
The people I talk to who don't seem to have an ideological dog in this fight and who are informed are generally of the "LNT seems to work pretty well; the newer, larger datasets in the last few years seem to back it up; the hormesis people vastly overstate their case" view.
Nobody asserts that we totally understand the effects of very-low level radiation, but the LNT thesis assumes that in our ignorance, we should be wary about exposing large populations to low levels of radioactivity. The hormesis thesis instead assumes we can be cavalier about it.
For anyone who is curious, "what kinds of human studies have been available on this since the last BEIR report?", this page has some very useful references and puts a lot of the data into a common framework. http://iangoddard.com/LinearNoThreshold.html …pic.twitter.com/0SAjE31yy0
I'm not suggesting the data speaks for itself, or that his interpretation of the data is the only one out there. But I've found it a useful resource, and the references are *very* useful.
If the people who are advocating for one side or the other are using facile examples ("did you know Denver has high radiation levels?") and not talking about serious studies with real data and serious statistical analysis... be wary.
(And FWIW... I think the hormesis advocates would be smarter to NOT push this during the Trump admin. The bad-science association will not wash off easily. But then again, many of them previously chose to take money from Big Tobacco, so... anyway. Do what you are going to do.)
This is a tangent, but the Department of Energy shut down its low dose radiation research program a couple of years ago. Bipartisan legislation enacted last week orders them to start it back up: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/589/text#toc-H0489DDED260148FF94A50E47F7A37AAB …
Radiation hormesis is not strongly supported AFAIK, but the existing Linear No Threshold model was adopted without supporting evidence for it. We are long overdue for actual evidence supported policy for radiation exposure, whatever that evidence shows.
There's nothing to distinguish radiation damage from other sources of damage when it comes to repairs, it's ultimately all chemical damage. Radiation is not magic.
That's right, radiation damage is additive and if not dominant to other sources which are constantly present then it is also not dominant as the repair stimulus. A simpler way of putting this all is: No way is getting shot through with just a few holes healthy for you.
It's just damage, like happens all the time. At low doses, like you are getting right now, it is part of the normal wear-and-tear of the system. It doesn't make sense that there would be repair mechanisms specifically responsive to radiation damage.
It ia always the same ideology and methodology - climate change deniers and tobacco industry advocates
More: hoping that’s a CAT scanner in the photo and not a MRI device (totally different radiation). And odd that they show a med-device. Here the risk/benefit calc is easier: accept rad dose to gain medical care...& doses are high from CAT scans...not low.
So, they cannot say that one way or another, and if they do they are totally guessing.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
