News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from at... by dr_faustus on Friday March 12, 2021 @05:10PM (#26441587)
1 mSv is a pretty low threshold. It's actually a bit more than 10x the radiation of a thorax x-ray done with modern equipment. But its 1/10 of a thorax ct. It's also less than the yearly difference between the exposure of people living in regions with low and high natural radiation here in Germany (which, as has far as could be determined, has no impact on the cancer rate).
Re:France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from at... by lostlogin on Friday March 12, 2021 @05:24PM (#26441710)
Could you expand on this? I didn’t understand the problem to be the threshold, but the convenient underestimation of dose by a factor of 2-20x.
Re:France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from at... by dr_faustus on Friday March 12, 2021 @05:43PM (#26441864)
It's not my place to evaluate which method of calculating the exposure was correct. Just pointing out, that 1 mSv is a rather small amount of radiation. The smallest amount of radiation where one sees some indications of an increase in cancer risk is at 50-100 mSv [1].

I'm not arguing either way whether this should have an impact on any payments. Putting the threshold for compensation at 1 mSv is very conservative and will lead to the payment of compensation for many cancers that weren't caused by radiation. Which, again, is fine by me because I do believe that very little interest was paid to the protection of the neighboring populations.

[1] Pretty good summary: https://www.pnas.org/content/100/24/13761

Re:France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from at... by Retric on Friday March 12, 2021 @10:22PM (#26443607)
The issue here is both the linear no threshold and threshold model are indistinguishable with our current data.

The problem is cancer is really quite common and has many sources so it’s hard to say what if any level is actually safe to expose X million people to. At least with medical X rays there is some benefit to offset risk, but without that it’s much harder to justify.

Re:France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from at... by sjg007 on Friday March 12, 2021 @07:33PM (#26442706)
Most people don't get 10x thorax xrays done in their life. If you have a reason to get those xrays fine... But in general there's a cancer risk so just multiply it out.

I don't get dental xrays every year and I wait 3-5 years to actually have one. And I never have had a problem. You should only get an xray after the dental exam indicates a problem and you trust your dentist. I learnt this the hard way after seeing several pushy dentists over the course of a few years who in retrospect focused on the money. One of the dentists I saw was busted by the FBI for insurance fraud.

Re:France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from at... by jessaustin on Friday March 12, 2021 @08:56PM (#26443198)
...I wait 3-5 years...

You're saving money at both ends! Not only are you not buying X-rays, but it's also fairly likely that by the time a condition is serious enough to cause you pain, the only option left will be to pull the tooth. Extractions are definitely cheaper than fancy procedures like root canals, fillings, and crowns. At some point you might have no teeth remaining, and you won't have to worry about the issue at all!

Modern dental x-rays involve minuscule radiation levels.

Re:France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from at... by sjg007 on Friday March 12, 2021 @11:20PM (#26443930)
Yeah as smart as you sound, you are wrong. Why don't you read:

https://www.ada.org/~/media/ADA/Publications/ADA%20News/File...

before you spout nonsense.

Re:France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from at... by jessaustin on Saturday March 13, 2021 @12:03AM (#26444115)
I'm not going to read all 29 pages at this hour, but the chart on page 5 clearly indicates that patients with teeth should be getting 4BW every 2-3 years at the longest.

Note: if a dentist or hygienist notices something, it doesn't matter if you had FMX or pano 3 months ago. Getting another BW or PA can make the difference between a tiny filling and lots of discomfort.

Re:France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from at... by redis_mlc on Friday March 12, 2021 @10:07PM (#26443537)
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but extractions can be cheaper and more effective than root canals, fillings, and crowns.

If you have a tooth with only 2 roots and one of them cracks, then it's better to just remove the tooth. Besides chronic infection that can hemorrhage, it will have to be extracted within 5 years anyway.

With 3 roots and only one cracked, sometimes dental surgeons can do something.

Also, the comment about dental x-rays being a profit center are clearly true. In SV, it's like they put you on a calendar for them, and they're usually done before an exam.

Re:France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from at... by 09bjb on Friday March 12, 2021 @07:35PM (#26442718)
I would love to have this conversation with my dentist but don't have much data to back it up at the moment. Do you have any good sources?
Re:France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from at... by sjg007 on Friday March 12, 2021 @07:59PM (#26442889)
Just look at the American academy or association of dentistry recommendations. I forget the name but it’s the scientific organization that accredits dental education etc..