It's well understood that the young are more susceptible to high doses of ionising radiation through breaking genes as they're developing. We know why, this is not controversial. So... what dose did each receive and what were the effects?. That is the only scientific measure necessary. So the greater question is why are the 'video activists' not discussing it? It's not good enough to ask why more die from stuff they didn't before because thats an emotional guess for propaganda. You have to ask why the activist scientists are 'begging the question' at all. We know why this is too and it's not scientific, but political. Have we not had enough of that?
I watched the video. It's propaganda. I'm surprised you posted it. Many serious allegations are made yet without scientific backing. I realise all institutuons involved are corrupt or have an agenda on both sides of the mania. At the very start images of dying children are being exploited. Lots of emotions. You are a thinker David. Why did you post this.
Was the cancer resistance due to radiation hormesis? Tobacco plant structure is known to attract infinitesimal amounts polonimum. This small dose rate from smoking might deliver the hormetic effect. See Edward J Calebrese for a lifetime of work on this in the face of fierce regulatory resistance and an incredible story of subterfuge far greater than the W.H.O ever mustered going back to WWII.
It all depends on dose rate. Certainly above 100mSv immediate dose is when noticeable injury occurs statistically. And certainly nature gives us a continuous dose from birth orders of magnitude less than that minimum. Certainly many people got a high dose downwind of Chernobyl. This is not a scientific question though. It's political. And it thrives on radiation hysteria. An invisible danger which is so easy to scare whole populations with.
It's also been proposed a higher dose rate is what actually causes lung cancer, not smoking, but this has been hard to prove because the stats are lost in the noise.
Frances Leader is truly a gift for me also. She's helped greatly in tying up many loose ends that I couldn't make sense of. Frances continues to educate me with weekly writings that I'm grateful for.
So much of the populace around me including friends are completely asleep and have no idea of our truer reality, if there is one?
It's well understood that the young are more susceptible to high doses of ionising radiation through breaking genes as they're developing. We know why, this is not controversial. So... what dose did each receive and what were the effects?. That is the only scientific measure necessary. So the greater question is why are the 'video activists' not discussing it? It's not good enough to ask why more die from stuff they didn't before because thats an emotional guess for propaganda. You have to ask why the activist scientists are 'begging the question' at all. We know why this is too and it's not scientific, but political. Have we not had enough of that?
I watched the video. It's propaganda. I'm surprised you posted it. Many serious allegations are made yet without scientific backing. I realise all institutuons involved are corrupt or have an agenda on both sides of the mania. At the very start images of dying children are being exploited. Lots of emotions. You are a thinker David. Why did you post this.
I see no mention of dose rate?
Thanks for bringing me here. I have subscribed. xx
Dear Frances, Thanks for subscribing. I look forward to your insights and critiques.
Was the cancer resistance due to radiation hormesis? Tobacco plant structure is known to attract infinitesimal amounts polonimum. This small dose rate from smoking might deliver the hormetic effect. See Edward J Calebrese for a lifetime of work on this in the face of fierce regulatory resistance and an incredible story of subterfuge far greater than the W.H.O ever mustered going back to WWII.
The hormesis angle is interesting. So important and so little understood.
It all depends on dose rate. Certainly above 100mSv immediate dose is when noticeable injury occurs statistically. And certainly nature gives us a continuous dose from birth orders of magnitude less than that minimum. Certainly many people got a high dose downwind of Chernobyl. This is not a scientific question though. It's political. And it thrives on radiation hysteria. An invisible danger which is so easy to scare whole populations with.
It's also been proposed a higher dose rate is what actually causes lung cancer, not smoking, but this has been hard to prove because the stats are lost in the noise.
Frances Leader is truly a gift for me also. She's helped greatly in tying up many loose ends that I couldn't make sense of. Frances continues to educate me with weekly writings that I'm grateful for.
So much of the populace around me including friends are completely asleep and have no idea of our truer reality, if there is one?
The increased risk shown here is nowhere near enough to have an effect.