Talk:Background radiation

This is one of several hundred nuke articles containing nothing but Tweenk's opinion.^{[citation NOT needed]} Ed@CP apparently doesn't like fact tags, so I hereby demand HCM. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 18:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a cool little animated gif for moral panic issues, a couple of peeps running about shouting 'zomg'. There should be another one for issues that -should- effect people, but no one gives a crap. Background radiation can be quite high, higher in fact that what you'd be exposed to near a reactor, but no one cares about that. Natman (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say nobody bothers about background radiation for good reason - there is no difference in cancer rates between low and high background areas, in fact in the U.S. the correlation is inverted: high background areas get less cancer. This absolutely doesn't prove something like radiation hormesis, but it does prove that high background radiation cannot be an important factor in cancer. I think the real issue is that people, including regulators, tend to go batshit insane when it comes to man-made sources of radiation, as outlined in fear of radiation... --Tweenk (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)