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 …
-
-
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.
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread -
(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.)
Show this thread
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.