this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
60 points (94.1% liked)

worldnews

3554 readers
24 users here now

Welcome!

We strive for high-quality standards on the latest world events.

The basis of these standards comes from the MBFC, which uses an aggregate of methodologies, including the IFCN and World Freedom Indices, to rate the Bias and Factual Reporting of News.


Does your post fit the standards? Check this thread!


Rules:


Rule 1: No Further Gaza/Israel war posts

Rule 2: No US internal news/US politics

Rule 3: Editorials, opinions, analysis, blogs, gifs, memes, etc non-serious news sources

Rule 4: Non-English articles require a translation in the post or comments (mark the title with the source language eg. [FR] for French)

Rule 5: Petitions, advocacy, surveys

Rule 6: All-caps titles

Rule 7: Old news (≥ 1-Month-old) articles

Rule 8: Unlabeled NSFW images/videos

Rule 9: URL shorteners

Thank you.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] INeedMana@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's sad that nowadays when we read about a limit considered safe by an organization, we have no way of knowing if it came from real studies and analysis or is it just a lobbied value that big players are using to weed out smaller competition because current technology can't get below the really safe limit anyway

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago

Well, in the case of radiation levels, the science goes back far enough, and with enough duplication/replication that it is as solid as anything that's an ongoing endeavor gets.

Like, everything is unreasonable technically going to be "to the best of current knowledge" because science is a process, and even when there's mountains of evidence, there could be newer evidence that contradicts previous conclusions.

But the general dosage limits have been in place and matched predictions for at least my lifetime (around 50 years), since those standards were used by my dad at that time and are still the same. A lot of the nuclear stuff wasn't done for profit, nor were the standards. So it's a tad bit better than something like petrochemical data.

I'd phrase it like this; I wouldn't want to go swimming in the tank the water is stored in, but I wouldn't worry about swimming in the ocean a few days later at all. The levels are just so low at that point that any danger is a non issue compared to things like smog.