scientists need to GET OVER IT

[Elok]

Technically, lung cancer from smoking isn't "proven" either.

[Lul Thyme]

What are you talking about diss?
I'm on the side of those who think people always exagerate about the atomic bomb.
For example, more people died in the napalm raids in Tokyo in one night than in both atomic bombs.

But it IS proven that radiation increases the chance of mutation in new born babies which in turn increases the chance of almost any kind of defect you can think of...

[Dis]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme
What are you talking about diss?
I'm on the side of those who think people always exagerate about the atomic bomb.
For example, more people died in the napalm raids in Tokyo in one night than in both atomic bombs.

But it IS proven that radiation increases the chance of mutation in new born babies which in turn increases the chance of almost any kind of defect you can think of...

so you are saying we have muties running around this world then?

[Gibsie]

In my experience it's usually the hysterical medai and public that voice the possible effects of science. See: GM foods.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Elok
Technically, lung cancer from smoking isn't "proven" either.

I also have idea what you are talking about?
What does proven mean in this sense?
There is a high positive statistical correlation between smoking and lung cancer.
That means people who smoke have more lung cancer.
No of course correlation is not proof for causation.
But you'll never strictly prove causation in this case of setting or in fact in anything at all strictly speaking.

[Dis]

all I know is what I was taught. It is entirely possible the goverment was feeding me wrong information.

I have worked with ionizing radiation, and had training to its effects.

While it hasn't been proven that radiation causes birth defects, they usually remove pregnant women from nuke power plants after their first trimester. Which was a moot point, since we had no women in the program .

Hell, they can't even prove radiation causes cancer. Although we all suspect it does. So their justification is we try to keep it as low as possible. Even though we were allowed up to 5 REM a year, we never got anywhere near that. I ended up with oever 600 millirem throughout my entire career. Though this does not include neutron, alpha or beta radiation. Our detectors only measured gamma radiation.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Dissident


so you are saying we have muties running around this world then?

Well actually all of us are muties in a certain sense...

What do you think si teh cause of variation from the gene pool in the long run?
Mutation!!
Mostly caused by radiation, which there is all around as you were trying to say I think.
Mutation is the only way for genes to vary in the long term, and are a cetnral process to evolution.
You even have genes that control how much mutation is allowed from one generation to another (they can go wrong sometimes though)

When mutations get out of hand, that is a bad thing, evolution wise.




On a individual basis, though, many mutations are a bad thing, which is why big doses of radiations are not good....

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Dissident
all I know is what I was taught. It is entirely possible the goverment was feeding me wrong information.

I have worked with ionizing radiation, and had training to its effects.

While it hasn't been proven that radiation causes birth defects, they usually remove pregnant women from nuke power plants after their first trimester. Which was a moot point, since we had no women in the program .

Hell, they can't even prove radiation causes cancer. Although we all suspect it does. So their justification is we try to keep it as low as possible. Even though we were allowed up to 5 REM a year, we never got anywhere near that. I ended up with oever 600 millirem throughout my entire career. Though this does not include neutron, alpha or beta radiation. Our detectors only measured gamma radiation.

Well I dont know where you got your information.
When Chernobyl exploded, the first crews to get on site (firefighters, helicopter people) all died within weeks.
All they were exposed to was radiation.
What do you think caused their death?
Some assassin from the government to keep up the facade that radiation was bad?
(BTw many more thousands died over the next FEW years, hundreds, just in the helicopter crews.)

[Dis]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


Well I dont know where you got your information.
When Chernobyl exploded, the first crews to get on site (firefighters, helicopter people) all died within weeks.
All they were exposed to was radiation.
What do you think caused their death?
Some assassin from the government to keep up the facade that radiation was bad?
(BTw many more thousands died over the next FEW years, hundreds, just in the helicopter crews.)

they died from the radiation of course!

but they didn't die from birth defects, nor did they die from cancer.

and I have heard figures that 10's of thousands have died from cancer, but I have never seen any evidence backing this up.

I want proof that tens of thousands of people died from chernobyl.

[Lul Thyme]

Its like everything.
It depends on the dose.
There is radiation everywhere, some place more than other.
Im not saying to be hysterical, but heavy doses of radiation WILL kill you, if the dose is heavy enough, even instantly....

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Dissident


they died from the radiation of course!

but they didn't die from birth defects, nor did they die from cancer.

Well ok the birth defect part I wont answer.
But actually a lot of those who died over the next 2-3 years DID die from cancer, and many more of them got it then could be explained by any other means that the radiation.

[Lul Thyme]

So in fact radiation does cause cancer.
But also, at some point, I wonder what is the poitn of arguing if radiation kills you just by itself or by giving you cancer first??

[Dis]

heavy doses of radiation kills cells. This is proven. This is what kills you. (and it's also why they use radiation therapy to treat cancer- the idea is to kill cancer cells off)

[Last Conformist]

@Diss: Why, then, do you think that child leukaemia, along with various other cancer, is thru the roof in Belarus?

[Elok]

Yes, correlation does not equal causation, and yes, that was my point; with that strong of a correlation you'd be stupid to keep it up whether it was proven or not. It's also unethical to unambiguously test this sort of thing in a lab; who gives grants to people who irradiate pregnant women to see if they can deform their kids? All we have to go by is case studies, which aren't "proof." Even with no evidence at all, given the way just about anything can affect the development of the unborn child, it would be a reasonable guess that prolonged exposure to radiation will cause problems.

Working in a nuclear plant should not cause conditions analogous to living under radioactive fallout. The natives living near Bikini Atoll didn't have full-body rad suits, or lead shields. They were also eating and drinking food and water contaminated by the "reactor," which contained traces of radioactive particles instead of just radiation.