Radiophobia

Even the tiniest radiation can give you terminal cancer anon ;) You can die from a banana isotope tomorrow.

>>8277519
ya my dad got an ct scan of his chest and died of lung cancer :^)

>>8277521
Thus, proving that CT scans cause cancer.
All confirmed cancer patients are exposed to CT scan radiation ;-)

>>8277517
I know man, when will people learn?
They're all afraid of radiation, even non-ioninzing radiation like microwaves and cellphones. What the hell dude, I've been using my microwave with its front door broken for over a year and I'm just fine. And all these morons are afraid of power cables and living near a nuclear power plant. That's obviously retarded. I would never mind living next to a nuclear station, in fact I might look forward to it in the future because the prices will be lower thanks to all those ignorant fuckers that are afraid and leave.

Also there are some bathhouses/health resorts in Japan that have lots of radioactive stuff and they say it's good for you, I would try it if I could just to prove to these morons that it's safe.

>>8277532
radiation causes cancer. why do you like cancer ? :^)

File: 1471239431175.gif (1MB, 266x268px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 266x268px

>>8277517
It will truly end when fear mongering articles coming out basing retarded extrapolated data that was never based on anything significant in the first place on their retarded """findings""" become illegal for scaring people with scientifically illiterate information.

The only time any low dose of radiation is an issue is when you're a small child that is still literally growing or have a genetic predisposition to cancers. If not, you have no reason to have radiophobia.

If you have a kid that's under 5 years old, don't let them get CT scans if they don't really need it or could wait for an MRI. That's really it.

>>8277517
>reality has done so much damage to the reality

Fuck off nuclear power shill. Unless nuclear power is nationalized, it fucking idiotic.

Radiation doesn't even result in permanent cell damage/mutations until you hit high doses. Our bodies repair this on a daily basis. Any radiation damage from medical imaging, natural background radiation, nuclear waste etc is just not enough to destroy or mutate cells. The psychological effects of believing that to be the case is way, way more damaging than what these articles spew.
>>8277541
I wanted to go into nuclear engineering for a while but then I realized I wasn't really a fit for engineering.

File: Fig1_TapeiCo60.png (27KB, 456x262px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 456x262px

If you want 97 % less cancer (maybe even zero cancer if you don't smoke and eat healthy), all you have to do is live in a moderately radioactive environment.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/

I'm guessing most cancer is caused by spikes of carsinogens that far exceed the level of DNA damage that your cells are used to repairing. So make sure your levels of repair molecules are high all the time. So don't make sunbathing trips during the winter (unless you can accustom yourself before the trip slowly).

File: 800px-EM-spectrum.svg[1].png (50KB, 800x564px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 800x564px

>>8277519
>>8277521
>>8277526
Jokes aside, Xrays are deadly and are ionizing DNA-damaging. so CTscans DO cause cancer to all the patients.

>>8277569
>ignores everything and posts a meme
keep shitposting

>>8277554
>less thatn 5mSV/y
>literally just 2x background radiation
>retarded and obviously biased writers
>compare results not to a control group but the general public, completely ignoring income, occupation etc
>"lol guise, radiation is good 4 you xd, who else /reddit/ here lol"


kys.

>>8277573
Go away cancerbag.

>>8277569
read the thread

>>8277599
read.
> I've been using my microwave with its front door broken for over a year and I'm just fine
anectodal """evidence"""
> all these morons
ad-hominems
>That's obviously retarded.
argument from shitposting
>all those ignorant fuckers
more desperate ad-hominems

Shitposting doesn't change the fact that radiation causes cancer and that chart is from wikipedia

You're not fooling anyone with your weak trolling attempts and ad-hominems.

>>8277569
So what ? Cancer is also widely misunderstood. Cancer isn't really something that effects peoples daily lives, it's less annoying than catching cold.

You ignorant fuckers are ruining the society.

>>8277569
>>8277605
Radiation is a weak carcinogen. Hell, your post is more cancerous than ionizing radiation. You receive 160 mSv every year to your lungs if you smoke 5 or more cigarettes per day.

>>8277611
>trying to justify unhealthy effects of radiation exposure
0/10 you're really shit at trolling.

>>8277612
I'm not justifying anything. Calling people trolls who aren't trolling doesn't in turn make you a good troll.

>>8277611
>You receive 160 mSv every year to your lungs if you smoke 5 or more cigarettes per day.
No you don't. You get 0.36 mSv/year if you smoke a pack a day.
Die you stupid faggot.

>>8277618
>radiation doesn't cause cancer
you are trolling and you are shit at it
>>>/b/

File: Lungs-Smoker-Non-Smoker.jpg (85KB, 640x384px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 640x384px

>>8277624
You're talking about the effective dose to the entire body. Where do you think it all goes? Do you think it just disappears? What do you believe is the reason why smokers lungs look like this?

This is to prove a point. Not all life-long smokers develop cancer in the lung or esophagus. Only about 10% of them, actually.

File: radiation[1].jpg (6KB, 260x210px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 260x210px

>>8277639
A simple googling is enough to debunk their retarded trolling.

> Your cumulative long-term dose plays a big role in cancer risk

>>8277624
lol, you get about .44 mSv per day on top of everything else if you smoke one pack per day. It's your funeral, though. It's not my fault you don't understand radioactive materials.

>>8277624
>You get 0.36 mSv/year if you smoke a pack a day.

You're clearly a smoker that just doesn't want to know that he's getting basically 5 chest x-rays every day he smokes.

That's the reality. Doing that for 30+ years will possibly fuck your shit up.

>>8277532
>tfw physic teacher (she) thinks cellphone&WIFI causes cancer.
>Annon i tried it myself with Cress i plantet 1 cress near the wifi and it died faster


she probably put 1 cress on the window and one in the corner where the wifi stands

prob

>>8277605
microwave radiation is only bad when it hits your eye because it can heat your retina in just seconds

also i think increasing cancer rates are not because we have more radiation (cellphones wifi etc.)
but because were geting older and older and we find the cancer more often

my dad told me back in the days no one had "diagnosed cancer" but there were people that had :
"bad blood" (leukemia) or skin ulcer (skin cancer)
> A: how is it franz going
> B: not so good he has a ... (ulcer)...

no one sah he has cancer

>>8278396
Cancer rates have not increased at all without a very obvious reason. I think abdominal cancers that have a high risk if you're obese is all that has increased.

>>8277517
>/sci/ is redpilled on radiation but still thinks smoking is bad for you

There is no consistency.

>>8279436
2/10

it's your funeral.

>>8279436
>still thinks smoking is bad for you
fuck off cancerbag

>>8279443
see >>8279439

that's why i don't use microwaves. if you microwave water and let it cool and use that water to shower and brush your teeth, your plants won't even grow in that water.

>>8279436
Seriously anon, do you have any hobbies other than shitposting?

File: 34b346.jpg (5KB, 187x200px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 187x200px

>>8279436
>smoking isn't bad for you
yeah man i ingest polonium, lead, radium, thorium radon, and bismuth all of the time

>>8279449
>ingesting bismuth
I don't want to believe that bismuth is bad for human health.
If it is, then theres surely no God.

>>8279453
you don't want to ingest bismuth 210, no.

>>8279457
what happens ? is it similar to lead poisoning ?

>>8279449
Those are all scare words and marketing tactics from the pharma machine. If what you're describing is bad, common sense would dictate smokers would drop dead in ten years, but unfortunately for you it takes many decades before dying of some other ailment smoking didn't actually cause.

>>8279459
it's like ingesting a weak polonium 210
>>8279460
nobody is taking you seriously

File: bN8ku.jpg.ea2f62ca510c9eb96ddb1087ae7db860[1].jpg (69KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 600x600px

>>8279460
>anything that doesn't kill you is healthy

It is actually difficult to get funding for lose dose radiation research now, because basically the consensus is that the LNT model is stupid and has no basis in reality. The real cutting edge of the debate is Threshold models vs. Radiation Hormesis.

However, scientists are not policy makers. And so the misinformation continues. For almost the entire population, they will get more exposure from airline flights, cigarettes, and natural radon than they ever will from any other sources.

The singular exception being malfunctioning beam sources. Even the cancer rates after Chernobyl border on what was the background rate anyway, and that would have been prevented almost entirely if the population had been given iodine pills.

>>8277517

It's a thing 90% of the population cannot understand. Radiation is green stuff that will make big explode then mutate you into something horrible. Also nuclear power is expensive so it's very easy for NIMBYs to fight.

>>8277541

>what is the TVA
>I'm a stupid yank that doesn't understand how life works in the South, much of which relies on nuclear power

>>8279477
The LNT model only exists still to cover asses of policy makers. All that we really know is that single doses under 100 mSv have no observable effects. Smokers have a cumulative dose of like 10 Sv to their lungs, more than anyone will ever get from medical imaging or background radiation in several lifetimes, yet only about 10% of them get lung cancer.

>>8279519

The point with cigarettes is that the chemical toxicity is probably more damaging than the radiation effects could ever be. This is also the case for something like Cs, which is (other than iodine) the main agent of any interest after a nuclear accident/fallout.

>>8279519
>yet only about 10% of them get lung cancer

You should watch what you say or you'll be dismissed offhand by drones. For a second there it sounded like you were saying smoking dorsnt cause cancer, and that goes against the modern scientific dogma religion. We're at war with Eastasia, remember?

>>8279523
They always say it's the chemical toxicity that's the problem. Then they turn around and say organic is still bad to smoke, because muh burning plant matter.

>>8279555
I'm focusing on how the LNT model has fucked shit up. Guys smoke for their entire lives and get these gigantic cumulative doses of radiation, let alone the chemical toxicity, and only about 10% end up with lung cancer at some point in their lives.

>>8279460
t. Altria representative

>>8279839
Nice rebuttal on a science board. Your parents must be proud of you.

>>8280102
look above at the posts that actually talk about science.

>>8277517
friendly reminder that the linear quadratic model has much more evidence behind it.

>>8279460
>radioactive materials are "scare words and marketing tactics from the pharma machine"

0/10 actually try next time

>>8279460
I am so convinced by this post right now that I wanna go swimming in a nuclear reactor pool. Then wear my chastity belt made out of Uranium and move to Pripyat.

>>8281552
>I am so convinced by this post right now that I wanna go swimming in a nuclear reactor pool.
Actually, that's pretty safe.
Water is a decent radiation shield, so as long as you don't dive to the bottom you can swim around in those without absorbing any extra radiation at all.

>>8281539
>That stuffs TOTALLY BAD FOR YOU AND DEADLY GUISE
>Yeah like all those smokers who died in their thirties after a few years of smoking.
>What? Most smokers live to be nearly three fourths of a century old? Where did you get that idea? POLONIUM IS BAD!

>>8282451
This entire thread is talking about how radiation isn't as dangerous as people think. Do you even know where you are right now?

>>8282463
I thought maybe this thread would have rational discussion instead of journalism-tier scare tactics but I guess not.

>>8282825
w-what are you even referring to

>>8282848
Naming a bunch of contents of cigarettes is not the same thing as having common sense and realizing it takes decades if not half a century for smoking to actually hurt the user. Then you have the people ITT who are afraid of radiation still and are trying to act like even small amounts from CT scans will sprout rumors.

>>8282861
are you talking about the guy ITT that was shilling for smoking not being bad for you?

nobody takes people like that seriously anon. smoking cigarettes causes cancer, but it takes a long time. it rarely happens even by middle age.

>>8282873
>smoking cigarettes causes cancer, but it takes a long time. it rarely happens even by middle age
>rarely happens
>even by middle age

Sounds like it doesn't cause something if it rarely happens to people, takes that long for it to happen, and affects older people (who get sick anyway due to being old).

>>8283259
lol. people don't just randomly get lung cancer you fucking retard. and gee wiz, it just so happens that 90% of lung cancer cases are from life long smokers.

>>8283276
>90%

[citation needed], cuck. It's actually twenty percent. The other seventeen percent are nonsmokers and the other sixty percent are former smokers, which is usually anyone who smoked at least a hundred cigarettes. Since most studies are alleging that one's lungs repair themselves after one quits smoking, that means that most lung cancer patients are nonsmokers.

daily reminder that the average smoker receives a greater dose from radiation annually from smoking than is allowed by the NRC for people working with radioactive materials (in nuke plants, hospitals, manufacturing facilities, etc.)

File: 1397544751170.jpg (24KB, 480x391px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x391px

>>8277611
>Radiation exposure won't put you at risk of having cancer anymore than being a smoker will.
>Ergo it should be okay to expose people to radiation.
mfw this is your argument

>>8277611
>>8277624
no, it's 8 Rem, or 80 mSv per year for the average smoker.

>>8283364
Citation needed, anti-smoker. Sounds like massive scare bullshit from a highschool poster.

File: diploma.jpg (612KB, 1000x808px) Image search: [Google]

612KB, 1000x808px

>>8283495
not quite. NRC limit is 5 Rem. US average background radiation from natural sources is about 300 miliRem, smokers get about 8000 miliRem or 8 Rem.

>>8283495

i hope you swallow polonium

>>8283503
purdue is a garbage university.
my phd advisor said it best: "i would never go to purdue".

>>8283511
Because anon asked for a citation?
You just took yourself out of this discussion because you can't be taken seriously.

>>8283503
Citation?

File: 1460360034810.jpg (155KB, 625x513px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 625x513px

Radiation is easy because you can build up a tolerance over time and eventually become immune to radiation.

>>8283512
top 10 nuke program in the country
>>8283517

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC393580/

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/part020-1201.html

>>8277554

Time to invest in Nuka Cola.

>>8277554
>maybe even zero cancer if you don't smoke and eat healthy

But by your logic smoking would be good though, since you're constantly damaging cells so they will then be used to repairing damage. Why do people take such a strong position against smoking? I can maybe understand diet because that has been shown to make a difference in other parts of the world regarding life expectancy, but smoking doesn't. The countries with the most smokers still have the highest life expectancy. Smoking would ensure hat your "level of repair molecules" are high. And quitting smoking has been shown to trigger cancer.

>"Are lung cancers triggered by stopping smoking?" (pdf), (by A. Kumar et al., Med. Hypotheses 2007; 68(5):1176.).
>"In an overview of personal history in a number of lung cancer patients locally, we are struck by the more than casual relationship between the appearance of lung cancer and an abrupt and recent cessation of the smoking habit in many, if not most cases. The association is more than just casual development of cancer within a few months of eschewing cigarette smoking. ...
>The striking direct statistical correlation between cessation of smoking to the development of lung malignancies, more than 60% plus, is too glaring to be dismissed as coincidental. ...
>Nicotine stimulates corticotrophin-releasing factor (CRF) besides increasing the level of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), both of which interfere with immune systems [2]. Abrupt withdrawal of the addictive drug could trigger derangement of the `smoking-steroid' conferred immunity, priming the healing lung epithelia to dangerous levels uncontrolled cell division. ...

are people ITT legitimately trying to say that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer?

what the fuck

>>8284020
I don't know how many of these people are serious, but I'm pretty sure even OP was trolling. I mean, people can't really be that retarded, right?
Challenging the linear model at low doses and dose rates because of some "muh nuclear power is ebin lol" bullshit?

>>8284025
who the fuck has said anything about nuclear power ITT? shut the fuck up retard. the LNT model has never been correct based on basic biological reactions to radiation that we've known forever.

>>8284033
wew lad, time to suck my dick in a linear fashion.

Nobody cares about your inability to understand that the threshold only exists because you can't statistically correlate below it.
And higher dose rates might be worse than low dose rates for the same total dose, but that's irrelevant to most types of exposure (medical, background etc) because the rate and total dose is low enough. So go suck a dick you faggot.

File: back-to-pol.jpg (35KB, 490x290px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 490x290px

>>8279436
>/sci/ is redpilled
GTFO

>>8284041
lol what are you even saying?

>>8284041
There is no threshold according to LNT you moron.

>>8284025
>challenging the linear model
there is no such thing as "the linear model"

>>8284174
I know, that's why I support it.

>>8284241
>being a pedantic dicklet
fuck off.

>>8284244
Why is it that you support the LNT model? Do you understand that it is simply an extrapolation of high dose data and does actually have any evidence to back it up in any way, let alone all of the data going against it?

File: 1447974808475.png (120KB, 375x375px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 375x375px

>>8279436
>redpilled on radiation
>thinks smoking is bad for you

>>8279460
wtf I hate big pharma now

File: .jpg (104KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 300x300px

>>8278380
>physics class in high-school
>watch documentary about chernobyl
>water from putting out the fires is under the reactor and the molten core is about to melt through the bottom into the water
>if the firemen didnt remove the water it would have caused an explosion that would wipe out europe
>mfw
Why are physics teachers so braindead?

why is there one dude ITT shilling for smoking? how retarded do you have to be. yeah dude, you smoke and you're fucking your lungs up. sorry. your faggotry doesn't change that.

>>8284020
The post right above yours just suggested with good evidence that quitting actually triggers lung cancer. It's not just one paper, multiple papers have reached that conclusion. Considering how even anti-smoking sources have asserted that only a small percentage of all smokers get lung cancer, it could very well be a correlation=/causation situation, perhaps one of the biggest in the world of health due to how many people unquestoonably believe it.

>>8284273
>>8284289
You will need to prove it. Fuck, I am tired of conventional wisdom taking over his board instead of facts.

>>8284699
i don't see how smoking could possibly be healthy for you, ever.

>>8284287
Physics makes you braindead.
>hurr muh duality
>muh qualia
>muh event horizons
>muh singularities
>muh space """"time""""

>>8284289
>just
denial. doesn't want to admit that smoking causes cancer, it has proven in countless clinical trials beyond a shadow of a doubt smokers on average do not live as long.

>>8284699
>quitting actually triggers lung cancer
no, theres just a threshold time before cancer appears. usually 5-10 years minimum

>>8284699
>quitting actually triggers lung cancer
yeah, no it doesn't. that's retarded.

>>8284727
it does fucking retard
god this board is the dumbest board ever

File: 464654.jpg (97KB, 580x756px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 580x756px

>>8284731
yeah man stopping inhaling radioactive materials and toxic chemicals is bad for you :^)

>>8284715
Actually read the greentext and reconsider that theory because it doesn't add up based on what the above excerpt displayed regarding the recovery period that starts when you immediately quit.

>>8284713
>it has proven in countless clinical trials beyond a shadow of a doubt

Id like to see some of these """""clinical trials""""" and whether or not they're biased or maybe picked a non-randomized study group.

>>8284800
probably the fact that lung cancer was extremely rare worldwide until cigarettes, and that 90% of lung cancer cases are lifelong smokers.

>>8284699
>only a small percentage of all smokers get lung cancer
but a large majority of lung cancer patients are smokers, which is a much more telling statistic.
"only a small number of golfers are killed by golf balls" is different from "90% of people killed by golf balls are golfers" clearly one shows the increased link between one activity and a health risk, whereas the other specifically attempts to downplay that link

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2004/pdfs/executivesummary.pdf

>>8284808
You mean the 40's? Nuclear testing went on during that time.

>During the period 1930-1948, the death rate from lung cancer among men rose from 5.3 per 100,000 to 27.1—an increase of 411 per cent
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1956/01/lung-cancer-and-smoking-what-we-really-know/304760/

>>8284839
no, i don't mean that. I mean the 1800s. kek.

File: 1457317456947.png (92KB, 441x298px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 441x298px

>>8283503
>bachelor

So, you went to a tuition farm and get a consolation prize.

>>8284845
>1800s

Source?

>>8284870
https://web.archive.org/web/20070718174754/http://www.smokinglungs.com/cighist.htm

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/64/1/4.full

Don't play stupid. You're a retard if you actually needed someone to google this.

>>8284852
that picture is very deep it shows how fucked up this world that we live in is

cigarette shill can shut the fuck up and fuck off. This isn't what the OP is talking about.

>>8284852
its funny how the only people who say this are the ones that either
a) didnt go to school or
b) the ones who chose a worthless degree

just because you didnt play the game right doesnt mean everyone else is suffering the same as you

>>8284852
lel I work as a physicist in nuclear medicine, so I get to help people and get paid well, all whilst doing something I enjoy. Where/s your hood mr scientist?

>>8284899
What do you personally think of the OP? What do you think of radiation from CT scans and such?

>>8284910
It's fine. The LNT model is kinda dumb
I'm not saying go out and artificially up your exposure but it you get some extra that's fine

>>8277519
>banana isotope
mutant fruits

>>8277569
x-rays aren't deadly and CT scans have never been shown to cause cancer in any correlation.

>>8286340
Neither has smoking.

>>8286340
>>8286346
Exactly. Anti-nukefags BTFO.

>>8286346
Yes it has and you can't prove otherwise.

>>8286351
>this anti-vaxx tier denialism

Smoking and cancer have never been successfully correlated, just because several studies tried to correlate it all at once doesn't mean smoking causes lung cancer or any cancer. Someday scientists will look back at the surgeon general report and Doll's doctor study and laugh. Don't know when though.

>>8286351
>Yes it has
[citation needed]
I bet you can't provide a single valid paper to support your claim.

>>8277547
> not fit for engineering
Than what are you really fit for?

>>8286387
Engineering is the dumb-guy field.

>>8286361
You're the minority. You have to prove the contrary.

>>8286475
>appeal to majority on a science field

The majority of people are religious too, do non believers have to prove the contrary? Fucking goddamnit, this is a science board and everyone here sound like a bunch of high schoolers when it comes to shit like global warming or smoking.

>>8287042
You're just so wrong that you're showing that you are an ignorant person that isn't worth taking seriously.

>>8277517
Thread seems like a huge strawman to me.
Of course radiation seems to damage the body at any level. HOWEVER like poison such as mercury or lead, it is the amount that matters.

>>8277541
Nationalized nuclear power.... like in the Soviet Union?

File: image.jpg (41KB, 450x382px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 450x382px

>>8287058
>what is radon gas

>>8287675
guess what's in cigarettes

>>8277517
Yep.

>>8277569
Dose also matters. Linear no-threshold is wrong because it ignores dose and dose rate.

What's the acute dose of a CT scan again? Is it more than 1 mSv for a full body exposure? If yes, then it may increase cancer rates.

>>8277652
> Your cumulative long-term dose plays a big role in cancer risk

Citation please.

Oh wait, there aren't any.

We have plenty of evidence that large acute doses of ionizing radiation are dangerous. We have zero data that long term exposure to slightly elevated radiation is harmful.

>>8279519
>All that we really know is that single doses under 100 mSv have no observable effects.
Correction: We have no human data that doses that low cause damage. Acute doses around 100 mSv probably do increase cancer rates. Based on papers that I've read concerning cellular function, the threshold is probably closer to 1 mSv acute full body dose IIRC.

File: xkcd radiation.png (87KB, 1134x1333px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1134x1333px

>>8288867
xkcd says 7 mSv acute dose. Damn, that is pretty close to the probably threshold for increased cancer rates. The increase might be too small to detect in epidemiological data, but it might be there.

>>8288867
A full body CT gives you way more than that, something like 20 mSv. Linear no-threshold is incorrect because it takes nothing into account because it is simply an extrapolation of high dose data. It doesn't take into account how our bodies heal damage from low dose radiation already, how some organs are more susceptible to radiation damage. The brain is very resistant while just about everything in the torso is very susceptible, for example. When you walk into radiology when they're scanning, they make you put on a lead vest, but never anything for your head, because it just doesn't matter.

>xkcd says 7 mSv acute dose
No they don't. A full body scan isn't a chest CT.

>>8288876
>No they don't. A full body scan isn't a chest CT.
Err, my mistake. My apologies.

File: pVYU7.png (40KB, 963x754px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 963x754px

>>8288881
100-200 mSv acute doses are the lowest we've ever observed to increase cancer rates. Medical imaging, especially CT scans, have been used in the millions for decades, yet cancer rates have not gone up, unless you want to talk about a couple of abdominal cancers that we already know are caused quite a many times by obesity and prescription drug abuse.

If CT scans caused cancer, we would know about it by now. We've had this gigantic group of what is now around 1,000,000,000 CT scans from four decades, just in the USA. A statistically significant increase would be very clear by now. Our bodies have been fighting radiation for their entire existences for our entire lineage on earth.

Somehow be in the middle of a nuclear reactor melting down and then you can start worrying about getting cancer from radiation.

>>8288905
>A statistically significant increase would be very clear by now.
Would it? Based on what I've read elsewhere, no, it not. In particular, I imagine that the set of people who receive CT scans are not the best sample group - too many confounding variables. Based on what I've read, seemingly no one respectable makes the conclusion that you are making now: that we have positive and compelling and clear evidence that the lowest harmful acute dose is "100-200 mSv".

File: weed warrior.jpg (285KB, 863x1026px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 863x1026px

anuuu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBhh23-paLU

>>8288905
>yet cancer rates have not gone up
Haha, what?

Nigga google cancer rates over time to see how retarded you sound.

>>8288929
The issue is that you're too retarded to not understand that the population has increased, or rather old age has increased.

I've done my research. I know the facts. Cancer rates overall have gone down. Old people are by far the largest group of cancer incidence. Certain cancers have gone up and we know why. It's not related to radiation.

>>8288912
Chronic annual doses of 100 mSv+ from background radiation has been shown to cause leukemia after a number of years as one example.

I really don't know what you're looking at, and whatever it is, just isn't correct. I've been researching this for quite a long time. Radiation that you'll receive in life is fine in just about every instance other than being in a nuclear and radiation accident or incident. This is because those acute doses of 100+ mSv are only ever seen then, which is where our cases of cancer years and years afterwards start to pop up, which mostly end up being leukemia or related to your thyroid.

>>8288942
>open AIDS-statistics.org
>shove aids-infected dildo up your ass
>see if the results change in real time
>they do, but the population is increasing anyway
>conclude AIDS-infected dildos cannot give you AIDS
10/10

>>8288972
this is why stats are always out of 100,000 age adjusted, genius.

>>8288929
Cancer incidence rates are just about the same that they were in 1975, so no, you're wrong. Cancer mortality rates are actually down by about 1/4th from where they were in 1975. Cancer incidence was at its peak in the late 80s and early 90s, mostly due to prostate cancer becoming an important screening. If you look at any charts, prostate cancer shot up like a balloon in the late 80s and early 90s, and this is simply because we started looking for it more, vietnam vets who were exposed to agent orange had an increased risk of about 50%, obesity is a big contributor to prostate cancer(as well as just about all cancers).

How to properly educate myself on that topic? It gives me annexity. I'm afraid of doing dental x-ray when I visit my dentist. I know it's stupid but this becomes more and more retarded until the point where I will stop eating bananas.

>>8283783
Or could it be a case of "Shit, my lungs are feeling really bad now and I've got soreness in my inner scapula. Maybe I should quit for real this time"

>>8289024
Dude, you don't have to worry about radiation like that.

The only times you have to worry about radiation in normal life is when you're a child(under 5) that needs a CT scan. These are the only instances where increased cancer rates are evident, and that is simply because children under 5 are growing VERY rapidly and this is the perfect storm for damaged cells to rapidly turn to malignant, fatal cancer. A child that gets brain cancer at these ages is basically dead. You CAN'T get cancer at these ages, it just messes everything up in your development. This is why it's a concern in pediatric CT scans.

Adults, and even younger teenagers getting CT scans, have no reason to worry. A dental x-ray? Give me a break dude.

You can look at loads of information on cancer rates from 1975-2013 at just about every angle from every cancer.

>>8284710
If you don't think event horizons are real, then you know nothing abotu GR and especially about Schwarszchild radii

>>8289091
This, I've been getting abdominal&lung CT scans every 6 months for 3 and a half years now and I'm fine. My doc said I probably shouldn't do it because the chance of getting a tumor out of the blue is very low, but fuck that. If I have cancer I want to know before it gets bad and CTs are much better than MRIs at resolving fine details especially around the lungs. Plus it seems like the radiologists are better at reading CTs than MRIs for some reason.

Jesus christ, this board is worse than i remember.

>>8289114
It's because CT scans are much higher resolution that MRIs, but are worse than MRIs for contrast of the images.

>>8289115
Seriuosly. This is the one board I would be Ok with losing our anonymity for. I'm sick of high schooolers talking over educated professionals.

>>8289115
>>8289127
guess what guys? you can leave if your propaganda isn't working here. bye bye.

>>8289114
why are you getting random abdomen scans?

>>8289180
I don't like cancer. My dad was diagnosed with lung cancer 5 years ago and died soon after.
I don't want to end up like this so I'm monitoring my health closely.

>>8289234
Was he obese? Did he smoke? Lung cancer is extremely rare otherwise.

>>8289234
>>8289236
By that I mean lung cancer isn't really a hand-me-down. Do other people related to you die of cancer, especially the same cancers? If everyone in your family dies of cancer, you may carry a genetic predisposition, basically entailing that your body sucks at repairing damaged cells and you just happen to have inherited that from your family.

>>8289237
No, it was just him and he was chain-smoking for 50 years.

>>8289249
Well, I don't understand how this would effect you and not negate the need for CT scan screenings then. The torso really doesn't like radiation so I don't see why you would do what you're doing.

>>8289252
It's not about high genetic risk, it's about being careful. I don't want to go through this myself. I was just a shocking experience.

>The torso really doesn't like radiation
Oh please, I'd expect better from /sci/. The radiation from CT scans is minimal, especially if you take in account all the errors calculating the "real" absorbed dose and its correlation with cancer probability. Most radiologists are retards, they don't keep up with the latest research. My guy keeps telling "you're 24, you should do this, there's no reason blah blah blah" but it's obviously bullshit. Maybe he should bother to read what has changed during the 20 years that passed since he graduated, official guidelines are notoriously slow to adapt to new data.

>>8289262
What are you talking about anon? Your dad died of lung cancer because he smoked for 50 years. Why would you ever think you'd get it just because? I suggest you see a psychologist.

>>8289265
I'm agree with this anon. Your dad had clear consiquences for getting it. You have no reason to do that twice a year.

>>8289265
>hurr durr you can't get cancer

1 in 2 people will die of cancer. Flip a coin, if it lands heads you get cancer.

Many of them will die well before they hit 40, and a large chunk of them will have no apparent reason to get cancer.
Doing these scans is perfectly safe you dumb fuck, I don't care what you morons say. Let me guess, you think microwaves give you cancer too, right?

>>8289282
>hurr durr you can't get cancer
Who even said that? Your dad died of lung cancer because he smoked for 50 years, and you don't do that. I don't what the problem is and why you would ever consider yourself to be at risk.

You're referring to the males lifetime risk of cancer incidence, which is 43-45%. The vast majority of cancers are in old age. The number of people who die of cancer is about 25%.

I have no idea where you're getting this tidbit that 1 in 2 people die of cancer, but it's incorrect and doesn't really make sense if you thought about it for even one minute.

You clearly have some sort of mental disturbance from your father dying of lung cancer, but it has nothing to do with you. You just need to talk to a psychologist, maybe just for a few sessions.

All that you're doing with these scans is increasing your odds of ending up with cancer somewhere in your torso. They are very small increases, but the more you have, the larger that risk is going to get. I suggest you quit while you're ahead and only have a few under your belt.

There was a study at Harvard where they monitored something like 30,000 women who were getting many CT scans, mostly in the torso, and about 2-7% of them ended up with cancer related to it. These women were getting dozens of scans, but these scans are safe within the boundaries of only getting them when you need them, meaning say a few times in your life. Your illogical ideas are what makes me think you need to see a psychologist.

>>8289319
>Your illogical ideas are what makes me think you need to see a psychologist.
I visit a psychologist and he thinks it's completely reasonable. My GP also agrees with me. Maybe you are the illogical one, did this cross your mind?
I'm pretty sure you have no background in medical science or even physics. CT scans have a next to zero danger of causing cancer, and anyone with the slightest education can see that.

>>8289341
Radiation can cause cancer, although it is a weak carcinogen. CT scans aren't dangerous if you don't get many of them. They're more dangerous, the more you get, at closer intervals, depending on which part of the body you're scanning, and your age.

You're saying that they're so obviously safe and that there is next to no danger, but you haven't really posted any evidence to prove such a thing, probably because you're talking out of your rear, because there is no evidence.

We know that the doses you receive from a single CT scan aren't a cause for worry, but we're talking about a single scan. Have 10 scans and then we may have a problem.

>>8289352
>radiation is a weak carcinogen
>10 scans are alarming

>2 or 3 scans are safe
>10 scans are dangerous

You're contradicting yourself all the time. And I'm not going to start listing papers and textbooks to educate your dumb ass, you will have to do it yourself if actually care. I'm done with you, you obviously don't know and don't want to learn.

File: oh.jpg (31KB, 177x278px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 177x278px

>>8289369
You're literally contradicting yourself. You are either a troll or a bit insane. What you're quoting is logically sound and you're saying it isn't, which is very odd. I very much suggest that you see a psychologist and stop getting unneeded scans.

You're literally getting them for something that has nothing to do with you. You're either retarded or crazy. This is like getting chest CT scans because your obese dad died of a heart attack. No shit he did, he was obese and old.

You're just an idiot. I'm trying to be nice, but you really are just an ignorant nutter, attacking people who are trying to help you, out of your own insecurities. You're just a weirdo.

>>8289114
lmao you've been giving yourself radiation for literally no reason

File: pool_safe[1].png (22KB, 432x288px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 432x288px

>>8281552
>>8281708

>>8289369
man i've never seen a crazy person try to justify their retarded choices here before

>>8289513
>crazy
he might be overdoing it but hes not crazy. 2 cts a year wont hurt anyone

>>8289774
Doctors specifically don't recommend getting screenings and it has been made fun of in popular culture like the television show House for example.

>>8279555
>plant matter has no chemicals guise
>chemicals are bad and scary
>plants are good

This meme needs to die

File: how_to_kill_yourself.jpg (36KB, 480x370px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 480x370px

>mfw

>>8288964
I'm sorry. I'm not sure what you're saying. It seems like you're saying a steady dose rate of 100 mSv / year is dangerous, and then it seems like you're saying that it's not dangerous. I'm confused.

My position is that a dose rate of 100 mSv / year is very probably quite safe, with no health risk, because of a threshold.

My position is also that 100 mSv acute dose is probably dangerous, and it may be that 10 mSv and maybe maybe 1 mSv acute doses are dangerous. Acute doses below 1 mSv are probably safe.

>>8289341
>CT scans have a next to zero danger of causing cancer, and anyone with the slightest education can see
Again, to be clear, my position is that if it is dangerous, the danger is so statistically small that it's beyond the resolution of the available epidemiological data, aka very small. I would avoid getting one for fun, but I would get one if it was deemed medically necessary / medically useful.

>>8289794
Agreed. When did chemical start being used to only describe harmful chemicals?

File: a-few-helpful-doctors-ready-to-excuse-you.jpg (1MB, 1734x1107px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1734x1107px

>>8291250
>and then it seems like you're saying that it's not dangerous
Where in the fuck are you getting that? 100 mSv isn't safe annually if chronically as we already see in lifelong smokers. I can tell you don't know what you're talking about because you don't even know that we know for a fact that single doses of 100+ mSv have sometimes eventually caused cancer, depending on the organ.

10 mSv causing cancer? That's a long shot unless it's an organ that is sensitive and you have a genetic predisposition. 1 mSv? If that was the case then we'd see almost everyone getting a CT scan developing cancer, which we've shown to not be the case already.

You also keep saying "acute dose" and I don't think you know what that means. That's when a dose is so high in such a short period that your body can't recover from it, such as a single 2 Sv dose.

From what I've read in studies that specifically look for how CT scans can cause cancer, it seems that you need to get a lot of the same scans in a short period of time.

>The body regions where CT-related cancer is most likely to occur are the chest, abdomen, and pelvis, where faster-growing cells are more vulnerable to radiation. The lifetime risk posed by a single abdominal CT of 8 mSv is calculated to be 0.05%, or a one in 2,000 chance of developing cancer.

In contrast, you have a better chance of getting hit by a bus 40 times in your life.

You can look at the atomic bomb survivors. They received more than you'll get in any CT scan, and even at 100 mSv, had an excess cancer risk of about 1.8%. The average dose received in these blasts was about 200 mSv, and they detected no excess cancers on the low end of the range(the bottom being 5 mSv)

Nobody is getting cancer from their one CT scan. Anyone that actually tries to debate this just didn't do their research yet.

>>8291580
>Where in the fuck are you getting that? 100 mSv isn't safe annually if chronically as we already see in lifelong smokers.

Uhh, I thought a lot of cancer from smoking was from chemical carcinogenic effects, not from the radiological carcinogenic effects.

100 mSv / year is only 25x background rates, and IIRC there are several lines of evidence that strongly suggest that cancer rates of people exposed to 100 mSv / year are the same as people who are exposed to "normal" radiation rates of 4 mSv / year.

>>8291637
>Uhh, I thought a lot of cancer from smoking was from chemical carcinogenic effects, not from the radiological carcinogenic effects.

Well, Polonium-210 and Lead-210 accumulate in a smokers lungs, delivering anywhere from 80-160 mSv per year to their lungs. Alpha particles don't penetrate very much, but where they do penetrate, they do a lot of damage, and decades of that, it's no wonder why some smokers end up with lung cancer.

>>8291648
That's also a dose that is specific to certain organs, and not a whole body dose, which means a threshold for dangerous health effects would be smaller.

>>8291650
Well, that is figured via mGy, and that depends on which organ you're talking about. The brain can take much more than the lungs can, for example. Half of the cells in the brain are almost impossible to induce cancer at all by design, cutting the equivalent dose in half automatically compared to most other organs.

>>8291657
If you don't automatically assume LNT, then taking some dose of radiation and hitting only the left lung is not equivalent to taking the same dose and splitting it between both lungs. Thus, it's not just a matter of the specific susceptibility of specific organs to radiation. It's also a function of how many individual cells in a region have received damage.

>>8291662
I don't assume LNT because it's not correct. What you're saying seems pretty irrelevant anyway.

>>8291666
I fail to see how. It seems completely relevant. Talking about a chronic or acute dose that is delivered only to the lungs is entirely different from talking about a dose that is delivered across the whole body.

As you noted, another factor is penetration power of things like alpha vs beta vs gamma, which is a separate but also equally important point.

>>8291671
That's why we have Gy, or grays

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_(unit)

>>8291678
What?

>>8291680
You should read what I posted before replying with something, especially something useless and unneeded. I don't know why you'd do that.

We use grays to determine absorbed doses on specific organs.

>>8291580
>Nobody is getting cancer from their one CT scan. Anyone that actually tries to debate this just didn't do their research yet.
/thread

>>8291682
What?

Everyone defending non ionizing radiation fail to consider its damage on a sub atomic level :^)

>>8279460
>something is only bad if it kills you within 10 years

>>8279839
I considered working for Altria for a bit, they marketed at my university for a bit. They have an interesting marketing technique. They only claim to be helping adults consume tobacco safely.

>>8281552
> I wanna go swimming in a nuclear reactor pool

That's actually a job, lol. One of my uncles was a nuclear engineer (nuclear technician?). Basically, he was trained in SCUBA and would swim in the reactor poor to fix parts of the reactor. I'm told that there is a line that you just don't cross, and certain precautions to prevent you from absorbing too much radiation (or spending too much time underwater, which is far more problematic).

>>8293191
>considered working for Altria
lol

File: welp.gif (113KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 480x270px

I just got my scan back and my DLP was 709 for my head CT scan, so I actually a below average dose. it feels good to go to a hospital with very modern technology. there are X-rays that get the same dose I got, kek.

File: citation-needed.png (552B, 163x96px) Image search: [Google]

552B, 163x96px

>>8277517
>so much damage
[citation needed]

>>8295496
your ignorance annoys me

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia#Radiophobia_and_health_effects

>>8295518
That is good, bcoz your ignorance
needs to be annoyed.
>wikipedia.org
fgt pls

File: 1471802906014.jpg (96KB, 1080x810px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1080x810px

So how many times in the geological record have the poles swapped? During these times there is no magnetic field and we are exposed to le ebil radeation. Does the biological record mass extinctions at the same time as pole reversals?

>>8295545
well, if your roundtrip plane goes over a pole, you're exposed to a lot of radiation. like the equivalent of a low dose CT or a L spine x-ray.

>>8295551
I'm talking hundreds of years of constant stellar and interstellar bombardment. Did that cause mass extinction at all? Did it even cause die offs? If radeation is actually dangerous we should see it in the biological record.

>>8293167
If it allegedly takes decades to kill you, with quitting possibly triggerig a bad reaction, then it comes across as a vastly overrated health risk. That's all I'm saying.

>>8295630
lol what are you even saying