“What the public doesn’t know is that the fundamental assumption of radiation safety and regulation simply isn’t true. This is the case against Linear No-Threshold.”
I found this video getting more interesting the further it went on. No relationship between cancer and radiation? And cancer rates go down for those with radiation exposure? You may be radiation deficient?
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.
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.
Contain your zealotry. It’s possible for the bad guys to be correct sometimes.
Cancer is also not the only harmful thing radiation does - you can also get infertility, birth defects, etc at lower doses.
This is a good point. eg, there was even mention of decreases in all cause mortality associated with ‘low’ dose radiation, but there’s quantity of life and quality of life. “Oh yeah, you’ll live 6 months longer than anyone, but we have to take a random body part each couple of years”
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.
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.
