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 …
-
-
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 -
-
-
What's with the zero dose origin ?? Besides natural background radiation, most people get dose from all sorts of diagnostic exams. Some of these study cohorts have very well documented dose records, yet the non-occupational dose is ignored, so as to place the LNT line at zero.pic.twitter.com/uaIecbSR4q
- 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.