Radiophobia

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

>ignores everything and posts a meme
keep shitposting

>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.

Go away cancerbag.

read the thread

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.

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.

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.

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

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

>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.

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

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.

A simple googling is enough to debunk their retarded trolling.

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

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.

>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.

>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

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

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.

>Veeky Forums is redpilled on radiation but still thinks smoking is bad for you

There is no consistency.

2/10

it's your funeral.

>still thinks smoking is bad for you
fuck off cancerbag

see

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.

Seriously user, do you have any hobbies other than shitposting?

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

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

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

what happens ? is it similar to lead poisoning ?

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.

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

>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.

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.

>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

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.

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.

>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?

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.

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.

t. Altria representative

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

look above at the posts that actually talk about science.

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

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

0/10 actually try next time

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.

>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.

>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!

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

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

w-what are you even referring to

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.

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

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

>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).

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.

>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.)

>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

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

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

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.

i hope you swallow polonium

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

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

Citation?

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

top 10 nuke program in the country
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC393580/

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

Time to invest in Nuka Cola.

>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

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?

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.

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.

>Veeky Forums is redpilled
GTFO

lol what are you even saying?

There is no threshold according to LNT you moron.

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

I know, that's why I support it.

>being a pedantic dicklet
fuck off.

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?

>redpilled on radiation
>thinks smoking is bad for you

wtf I hate big pharma now

>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.

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.

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

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

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

>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.

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

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

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

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

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.