#radiobiology

[nemfrog]

Fig. 30. “Percentage of control specific activity of iron 50 in the blood, liver, spleen and kidney of irradiated pinfish at different times after irradiation.”  Progress Report of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Radiobiological Laboratory. Circular 309. 1969.

Internet Archive

[thehumanfront]

New post > Science | Are X-Rays Harmful? Why Scientists Cannot Say

X-rays and other forms of radiation are key to making many diagnoses in hospitals. Radiation at this dose range is only potentially damaging. From my career as a radiation specialist I learned that the risk is unknown. We choose to err on the side of caution by pretending the risk is real.

Might radiation even be good for us?

[evilkaito]

I have the evilgakupo url I’m SO tempted

DO IT

[dirigibird]

cougar chaser rights!

peter lukas has no rights u_u

[foulserpent]

whats ur artfight username?

mantis

https://artfight.net/~mantis

[strangeauthorarchive]

Author I'm so happy for you! Congrats!

thank you!!!!

[evilkaito]

Wow are we sending nemu race asks? I'm 1/8 Korean on my mother's side but if I was it was through an affair and half her side vehemently denies it because "you are 100% Han Chinese don't let your idiot aunt or your mother tell you otherwise no one in this family would cheat" and the great grandma who (probably) cheated kicked the bucket a while ago so unless I contact with an Ouija we're not getting any answers out of her

time to break out the ouija!

[man-and-atom]

“I think that the paper could mislead the reader. I am surprised that the authors do not clearly state in the paper that their results do not show that radiation is causally linked to differences in population structure of dogs at Chernobyl. I am also surprised that the title of the press release claims ‘The dogs of Chernobyl may be genetically distinct due to varying levels of radiation exposure’ when the paper presents no evidence to support a causal relationship between population structure and radiation dose.”

There is a small community of scholars, across various disciplines (often found associated together regardless of discipline, or writing outside their discipline), who consistently produce papers asserting that ionizing radiation and nuclear energy present risks or harms which are, in degree and sometimes in kind, not in accord with the broader scientific consensus. In many cases these papers are severely attacked, and not rarely retracted, but they often continue to be cited.

One such researcher is Thomas Mousseau of the University of Wisconsin. Although not the lead author of this latest fusillade, he is clearly one of the major contributors. When the author of one of the works cited says “in fact our paper in no way supports the authors’ claim”, that should give you a fair gage of the quality of the research.