The Latest Headline Which Isn't

What is going on here?  A study was done which appears to show that people living in high background radiation areas live longer than those who don't.  I can't read the actually study, and am relying on this linked article.

The article states that the study proves the LNT "hypothesis" (it's actually a theory, which the headline gets correct) is wrong.  

NO, it doesn't.

The LNT theory applies to cancer, not longevity.  So even if the study is valid, the interpretation is not.

I dislike quoting the MAGAt Trump, but..."FAKE NEWS!"

  

The First Steps In Radiation Protection

A Biological Dosimeter

The dragonfly.

Prenatal Radiation Exposure

Fetus more radiosensitive than adult:

BBC Gets Fukushima Wrong

Predicting The Health Consequences Of Nuclear Terrorism Scenarios

With Dr. Timothy Jorgensen of Georgetown University.  Refreshing to watch some sound health physics being discussed:

 

Some More Radiation Biology

From the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.  I wish the speaker hadn't included hormesis or referred to LNT as a hypothesis.  But she did.  Otherwise, pretty well done:

The INWORKS Study

Here's the study, mentioned in the video within my previous post.

Funny, I've never heard a DeNiAr mention it!

Dose Rate Effects In Radiation Biology

From last year, courtesy of the ICRP:

Russia's Radioactive River

The Techa.

The Health Physics Society Is SORRY

Oops, I meant SARI.  On page 16 of the May, 2016 newsletter it says:

"Sunday evening concluded with dinner at the Hotel Santa Fe (where the chocolate cake is deadly!) and a fascinating talk by Mark L. Miller, CHP, PhD. Mark discussed his involvement with Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information (SARI) and concerns about the harm done by endorsing the linear no-threshold (LNT) theory."

Hello!  A scientific theory is a scientific theory!  You overturn a theory with evidence!  If you don't have the evidence to overturn it, you endorse it.  That's how science works.

The consequences of accepting a scientific theory, have to be dealt with.  But one doesn't deal with the consequences by denying the science.

American Nuclear Society Promotes DeNiAl

They reprinted some propaganda from DeNiAr James Conca which first appeared on that wonderful, scholarly scientific journal/website Forbes.  I responded within the Forbes masterpiece (I won't link to it here) and I responded to the ANS website.

My comment asked the question as whether or not the ANS really wanted to promote science denial.

My comment has been held in moderation.

So I guess my question has been answered.

Astronaut Scott Kelly Got Him Some Radiation

Much more than his typical Earth-bound counterpart.

"Strange Glow"

A book about radiation fears.

Of course, one of the reasons people fear radiation is because there are some other people who are intent to manufacture propaganda meant to induce fear in the public.  I don't know if the book covers that important aspect.

The Health Physics Society Provides Venue For DeNiArs

In the March issue of the Health Physics Journal.

Which is why I no longer support the Health Physics Society.

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

Is probably a psychological phenomenon, rather than physical.

Bad Dentist!!!

Dr. Goodman "believes" low dose radiation is beneficial. Bad man.

How Much Radiation Can We Tolerate?

Ask Ali.

Some Radiation Facts

25 of them.

This Radioactive Life

And so it is.