Xrays and childhood leukemia. Interesting implications for dose equivalent

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2012-02-29 19:45

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2010/10/04/x-ray/

I found it interesting that the authors of the study were so surprised by the results. Not yet understood why a single X ray -- equal to only 10 days background radiation-- would confer a significant, though small, increase in risk for childhood leukemia.

‹ Identifinder Contamination of zooplankton ›

X-rays: The Major Cause of

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-03-04 10:43.

X-rays: The Major Cause of Cancer

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/REHW691.html

10 days' worth of full-body

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2012-03-01 19:20.

10 days' worth of full-body radiation given to a portion of the body over a split-second interval.

Precisely. The results should

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2012-03-03 19:34.

Precisely. The results should not surprise; what surprises is why it has taken 100 years to catch onto this. You can not simply draw trivial comparisons to "Mother Nature." You just can't, without making a contemptible fool of yourself.

But you CAN

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-03-05 08:19.

The types of radiation that one gets from man-made sources is the same as what one gets from Mother Nature.

In the case of beta radiation, there are no "natural" electrons that Mother Nature emits, and "artificial" electrons that are emitted by man-made source.

An electron is an electron is an electron.

The only difference is the energy; and sources from Mother Nature have energies in excess of what man-made sources produce.

What counts is how much energy is deposited in how much tissue, where and over what time period.

For a given dose, the effects are greater if delivered in a shorter time period. This should not be surprising. If you drink a liter of alcohol in a sort time, the effects are greater than if you drank that same liter a little bit at a time over the course of a month.

methodology

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2012-03-01 07:05.

I didn't get past the first paragraph of the press release before the methodological red flags went up.

I'm sure if you did a study of pregnant women you would find that they had taken more pregnancy tests than non-pregnant women.

You would conclude from this that taking pregnancy tests causes pregnancy.

You would be wrong.

As they say in the science business, "Correlation is not causation."

You don't suppose sick kids get more diagnostic tests than non-sick kids?

yes but

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2012-03-01 12:30.

the uc berkeley scientists themselves thought the correlation significant