Videos

17282 readers

242 users here now

For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!

Rules

Videos only (aside from meta posts flagged with [META])
Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
Don't be a jerk
No advertising
No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
Duplicate posts may be removed
AI generated content must be tagged with "[AI] …" ^Discussion^

Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Flutter@lemmy.world

Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world

can@sh.itjust.works

qaz@lemmy.world

qaz@lemmy.blahaj.zone

qaz@sh.itjust.works

Radiation and Cancer: Linear No-Threshold revisited (www.youtube.com)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by No1@aussie.zone to c/videos@lemmy.world

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"What the public doesn’t know is that the fundamental assumption of radiation safety and regulation simply isn’t true. This is the case against Linear No-Threshold."

I found this video getting more interesting the further it went on. No relationship between cancer and radiation? And cancer rates go down for those with radiation exposure? You may be radiation deficient?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

He tries to argue that evolution would disprove radiation damage, but what is beneficial to the population can be detrimental to the individual. If you have procreated before developing cancer, you have passed on your genes, that's an evolutionary success.

Other than that, the data showed is intriguing.

I wish the people downvoting would explain why, though.