I watched this video, and I’m actually disappointed in Kyle. The first ten minutes were loaded with papers being cited for a single sentence back-to-back in a gish gallop without any context, and...
I watched this video, and I’m actually disappointed in Kyle. The first ten minutes were loaded with papers being cited for a single sentence back-to-back in a gish gallop without any context, and included arguments such as “early life evolved defenses against harsh radiation, therefore low level radiation can’t be harmful (which ignores that life reproduces en masse; living past reproductive age is a nicety of modern life that everyone enjoys).
Additionally, mutagenic accumulation is something that radiation therapy does consider long term. If you want to see the effects of long-term cell damage from low-level radiation exposure, look no further than the effects of the sun: skin cells don’t reproduce and travel far from their previous ancestor’s location, so you can see that a trucker’s tan stays on that one side of their body, and their skin unevenly ages. Tanning is the body’s short-term reaction to mitigate radiation damage, but you still get measurably increased cell aging, cancer rates, skin elasticity, and ability to heal.
I also found his “I have anonymous sources everywhere that support this unanimously, but they’re too scared to say anything” bit terrifically unimpressive. Not saying Kyle’s a liar, but generally if you’re a science-based channel, it’s best to not include appeal-to-authority fallacies based on literal hearsay in your argument.
Now, is Kyle wrong about hormesis? Not necessarily, there is debate in the community and it’s solidly unsettled science that needs further studies, and the human immune system could genuinely see zero increase in cancer at low enough doses. I personally think it’s likely, and that we’re going to see research that changes nuclear safety in the next twenty years.
However, that doesn’t legitimize Kyle’s logically unsound arguments and sloppy reasoning either: I’m disappointed by both Kyle and the fact that only a handful of the comments on that video notice the problems with his presentation of the issue.
@Toric I do want to say thank you for posting this, I think this is going to be a common topic over the next few years as nuclear efforts (rightfully) begins to ramp up, and it’s nice to have a...
@Toric I do want to say thank you for posting this, I think this is going to be a common topic over the next few years as nuclear efforts (rightfully) begins to ramp up, and it’s nice to have a chance to discuss this topic with folks!
This was a great video, thank you for sharing. I was under the assumption like most people that there was a cumulative effect, but it looks like it is much more nuanced and much more dependant on...
This was a great video, thank you for sharing. I was under the assumption like most people that there was a cumulative effect, but it looks like it is much more nuanced and much more dependant on rate than lifetime absorption.
I watched this video, and I’m actually disappointed in Kyle. The first ten minutes were loaded with papers being cited for a single sentence back-to-back in a gish gallop without any context, and included arguments such as “early life evolved defenses against harsh radiation, therefore low level radiation can’t be harmful (which ignores that life reproduces en masse; living past reproductive age is a nicety of modern life that everyone enjoys).
Additionally, mutagenic accumulation is something that radiation therapy does consider long term. If you want to see the effects of long-term cell damage from low-level radiation exposure, look no further than the effects of the sun: skin cells don’t reproduce and travel far from their previous ancestor’s location, so you can see that a trucker’s tan stays on that one side of their body, and their skin unevenly ages. Tanning is the body’s short-term reaction to mitigate radiation damage, but you still get measurably increased cell aging, cancer rates, skin elasticity, and ability to heal.
I also found his “I have anonymous sources everywhere that support this unanimously, but they’re too scared to say anything” bit terrifically unimpressive. Not saying Kyle’s a liar, but generally if you’re a science-based channel, it’s best to not include appeal-to-authority fallacies based on literal hearsay in your argument.
Now, is Kyle wrong about hormesis? Not necessarily, there is debate in the community and it’s solidly unsettled science that needs further studies, and the human immune system could genuinely see zero increase in cancer at low enough doses. I personally think it’s likely, and that we’re going to see research that changes nuclear safety in the next twenty years.
However, that doesn’t legitimize Kyle’s logically unsound arguments and sloppy reasoning either: I’m disappointed by both Kyle and the fact that only a handful of the comments on that video notice the problems with his presentation of the issue.
@Toric I do want to say thank you for posting this, I think this is going to be a common topic over the next few years as nuclear efforts (rightfully) begins to ramp up, and it’s nice to have a chance to discuss this topic with folks!
This was a great video, thank you for sharing. I was under the assumption like most people that there was a cumulative effect, but it looks like it is much more nuanced and much more dependant on rate than lifetime absorption.