Tokyo Radiation Less Than Paris’s Three Years After Meltdown

Re:Tokyo Radiation Less Than Paris’s Three Years After Meltdown by tptacek on Monday March 10, 2014 @11:51AM (#7373604)

What do you propose is the lifestyle difference shared by the population of Denver that offsets their doubled exposure to low-level radiation?

Obviously cancer has many causes, but to the extent Denver shares those causes with Oregon, they should wash out and reveal Denver's radiation-linked cancer (which, after all, you're basically arguing exists).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tokyo Radiation Less Than Paris’s Three Years After Meltdown by gnaffle on Monday March 10, 2014 @12:54PM (#7374060)

I was just pointing out a flaw in his reasoning. I didn't argue that it exists (and from what I gather from other comments, it doesn't). But if it did, it could be offset by any number of things, some of which might not be shared to the same extent with other cities.

Or it might be that the baseline background radiation is so small that 2x that baseline is still statistically insignificant compared to other factors.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tokyo Radiation Less Than Paris’s Three Years After Meltdown by tptacek on Monday March 10, 2014 @12:58PM (#7374092)

If you believe the latter statement, then you also aren't alarmed by radiation in Japan, right?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tokyo Radiation Less Than Paris’s Three Years After Meltdown by gnaffle on Monday March 10, 2014 @01:05PM (#7374137)

I don't believe anything in particular, that was just one of many potential explanations.

That said, I'm not alarmed by the radiation in Japan, I'm more alarmed about the situation of the Fukushima plant and the problems they face with potential leakage into the groundwater (among other things).

[ Parent | on HN ]