There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
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)