You still have not said whether you believe that the real risk is accurately predicted by the traditional LNT model, with its traditional risk factor, and its effective dose factor of 20x for high energy quanta radiation. This framing led ultimately to Mooney believing, on no more a scientific footing, that the brains of Republicans and Democrats had different structures – meaning that the former had less aptitude for science than the latter. Harris, S. and Noah Harari, Y. There is no way that I can take this paper seriously. Sorry, Eric, we’re stuck in the real world. Are we going to have to reboot from tardigrades? In this video, Weinstein reveals that the National Science Foundation deliberately decided to discriminate against minorities, in the mid-1980s, in favor of foreign-born tech workers… I hate to tell Eric this, but galactic cosmic rays (GCR) will shred his DNA within a few weeks to months of his leaving Earth’s magnetosphere. I supplied several papers that give the simple dose in Grays, and the effective dose factor, and the effective dose in Sieverts. And then the people who thought they were so smart died from lack of hygiene. Thus, if someone drank about 100 cups of typical caffeinated coffee in a single day, they could easily die. He is certainly not a practicing physicist, anyway. Ullrich RL, Jernigan MC, Storer JB. This also seems like quite a tangent, a diversion. Three times less than the dose that I already cited. I assume that NASA got the effective dose factor right. One lovely example he gives is a meeting that happened between a futurist, who was invited to speak at a “conference”, only to find that it was 5 rich assholes, who didn’t give a damn about anything he said, but just wanted him to tell them what to do about the inevitable “event” which they knew, just knew, would one day ruin the economy (not threaten people, just the economy), and how to save “themselves” from it. Let’s see what other sources that I can find. In fact, you are arguing with an entire peer-reviewed literature by radiation physicists. That means you are wildly wrong. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0120717, For high LET radiation the dose response for tumor induction is expected to be linear over the dose range from about 0.1 to 0.4 Gy with little dependence on dose-rate, especially at lower doses [21–30], however observed tumor dose responses often display a downward curvature as dose is increased. No shit that radiation is scary when we’re talking about acute doses of 20 Sv (aka 0.1 Gy of high energy particles). the short story; Masque of the red Death is out of copyright and available online, https://www.poemuseum.org/the-masque-of-the-red-death. Now a climate whore. But by all means continue. uncle frogy, Regarding the title: I’d say wealthy people are more likely to be crackpots; as springa73 notes above, they tend to attract enablers. High-Z, high-energy ions are far more damaging to DNA than lightly ionizing radiation. The efficacy and fidelity of DNA repair diminishes with increasing amounts of DNA damage simultaneously present in a cell. Earlier this month, Scientific American broke with what it claims is its 175-year history of political neutrality to endorse US presidential candidate Joe Biden. While current models of dose response emphasize initial cellular events, many types of radiation effects can contribute to the process of tumor development. This guy is president of the Dunning-Kruger society, right? On the surface, Astronauts will face high exposure to neutrons as well as about half the radiation of interplanetary space. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Well, if this is how he defends his ideas, I sympathize with his committee. Gotcha. This guy’s “both sides” schtick is getting old, you would think the democrats have tried to pass a law dismantling all border security by listening to this guy on Twitter. Gerard, Uh, dude, you do realize that you are arguing with a radiation physicist, don’t you. They depend on a whitewashed role of institutional science during the Covid-19 crisis, and on extremely alarmist interpretations of climate change and on other things that may well only count as ‘science’ because increasingly politicized institutional science has excluded challengers from its ranks – just as Grijalva’s witch hunt, Holdren’s censure, and Mooney’s slander intended. you known I am having a hard time thinking of money as a thing lately I always have had a problem with thinking about money for very long any way probably why i ain’t got that much of it. You’re speaking absolute nonsense. Climate change can be understood (and dealt with) as a problem without yielding sovereignty to undemocratic global technocracies. An iron nucleus at the peak of the GCR energy spectrum will penetrate almost 3 inches of Aluminum shielding. Indeed, the carcinogenic risk is negligible (or nonexistent) at low doses and dose rates (6,21,25) and increases with higher doses and dose rates (21,24–26). Upload PDF. Open thread (for everything but politics), Social Justice and Economics We should be asking why we’re so ill-prepared, why we have so few ventilators and hospital beds. That's how science advances. Please stop being so ridiculous. (at least regarding travel inside the solar system – are radiation rates higher outside the heliopause?). Yes, when you assume your conclusion, it’s quite easy to get to where you want to go. https://sensitiveskinmagazine.com/big-space-fuck-kurt-vonnegut/ But what field of science produced this judgment? Science has nothing to do with it. I have no idea what he’s talking about. And if Trump wins, they will look like bitter losers. The “Point” dose refers to dose without body shielding. The only place with abundant opportunity is the far cosmos. Radiation Climate Map for Analyzing Risks to Astronauts on the Mars Surface from Galactic Cosmic Rays Sorry, the second quote@40 was, of course, from GerrardOfTitanServer, @18. No doubt there are some hidebound traditionalists lurking in the Ivory Tower, but there are far more dynamic, passionately engaged physicists excited about any new revolutionary ideas that could set physics on an exciting new course -- regardless of where they come from.