The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Accepted radiation science comes from the same school which allows poisoning of groundwater and topsoil, spreading throughout the food chain, and claims to be heavily involved in the fight to eradicate cancer. the same science which demonizes tobacco without funding any studies on the effect of burning the 500+ chemicals found in modern cigarettes.
The same "science" which allows diesel engines and coal plants, while soliciting billions/yr in cancer research funds. Which hammers home the points that we are irradiated when we fly, while keeping secret the effects of using depleted uranium to pierce armor.
If there was ever a time to be watchful, neigh vigilant, of the spin on the entire nuclear cycle, it is now. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
You probably mean the 599 additives, because tobacco alone includes an extreme variety of harmful chemicals, and burning biomass (not just tobacco) produces a lot more. Read this report, which discusses insufficient (but non-zero) research on the effect of additives (p. 44-45). Several harmful chemicals found in the tobacco plant or its burn products, from the most carcinogenic hydrocarbons to the most poisonous heavy metals, are discussed on the previous pages. Later pages discuss other influencing factors, like cigarette paper and temperature and method of puffing. If anything, more research into the effect of cigarette additives when smoked will add to an already bad picture. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Consequently, actual exposures to and doses of components of smoke cannot be derived from values obtained with machine smoking.
The purpose of my comment was to comment on studies of ionizing radiation and the various biases within accepted science. Let's address cigarettes in another forum.
Despite some perhaps throwaway literary licenses, I wish to remain focused on radiation. Because we all respect the brilliant, intelligent humor of xkcd, we need to focus on the meme presented. and its shortfalls. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
Your throwaway literary license included an implied complete dismissal of research derived from uncertainties in one sub-field, suggesting an exaggeration of the harmful effects of tobacco smoke (and now you added to it before saying we shouldn't debate it here). Your claim about radiation is of playing down the effects.
Regarding some science on the effects of ionizing radiation and their dismissal by certain forums of acceptable science, there are examples in my Chernobyl's Downplayed Victims, including the brain and blood vessel damage. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by gmoke - Oct 1
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 24 3 comments
by Oui - Sep 19 19 comments
by Oui - Sep 13 35 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 11 5 comments
by Cat - Sep 13 9 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 2 2 comments
by Oui - Sep 3020 comments
by Oui - Sep 29
by Oui - Sep 28
by Oui - Sep 2711 comments
by Oui - Sep 2620 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 243 comments
by Oui - Sep 1919 comments
by gmoke - Sep 173 comments
by Oui - Sep 153 comments
by Oui - Sep 15
by Oui - Sep 1411 comments
by Oui - Sep 1335 comments
by Cat - Sep 139 comments
by Oui - Sep 127 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 115 comments
by Oui - Sep 929 comments
by Oui - Sep 713 comments
by Oui - Sep 61 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 22 comments