this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2026
221 points (87.5% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

41567 readers
3649 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Oh look, yet another person with an opinion on the LNT model for radiation exposure. As a safety professional, let me explain in really basic terms.

Everyone knows the model is pretty shit for long-term exposure to small doses. This isn't news, and hasn't been new for the past half century.

Similarly, we all know that chemical exposure levels are, for the most part, entirely bullshit. The exposure lengths are often based on 40 years of 40 hours a week, which is almost never true, and are even then very conservative.

The problem is that you can't get accurate data. You can't expose a couple of hundred people to hazardous conditions for decades, just to get better data. Everyone bitching about LNT for radiation or all sorts of chemical and biological exposure limits is overlooking one key detail.

We don't have a better model. We can't develop a better model in any remotely ethical way with current or near future technology either.

[–] Forester@pawb.social 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Its the best model we have it may not be 100% accurate but it is better than nothing and assumes any radiation exposure is carcinogenic. However in gen pop (read healthy adults) our natural repair mechanisms are generally apt to repair damage caused by exposure to doses less than 5mSv/y

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1350448715000086

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Exactly! The model is wrong for low level, long term exposure. We know that, it's not new or shocking. But there isn't anything else, and you can make a decent argument there won't be anything else either, so we're kinda stuck with it.

[–] Forester@pawb.social 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm failing to see why you seem to be implying that low level exposure is dangerous then as we both seem to agree the current limits are abundantly over cautious as evidenced by high natural background exposure studies.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

I'm failing to see why you seem to be implying that low level exposure is dangerous then

I'm not?

I'm complaining about people who can only go "LNT bad, waaaah". Put up something better to use.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I know the whole "humans are not mice" thing ... but wouldn't tests on lab animals go a long way toward refining exposure models?

Yes, you can't just assume that things will affect humans the same way they affect mice. And maybe a mouse model of long-term exposure is hampered by the short lifespans of mice. But surely that data, used in combination with the human data we already have, could help produce a more accurate, reasonable model?

[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

LNT is wrong

We know it's wrong

We don't know how to get to a different model

Let's do nothing

Like, to clarify, this is your argument, yeah? Wouldn't "the highest levels we know don't cause excess deaths" be a better standard? You could claim that that isn't particularly rigorous, but neither is LNT. And it allows more movement than "We must spend every penny we can on radiation mitigation, regardless of harm reduction"