this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2026
564 points (91.3% liked)

memes

21482 readers
1656 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I think a good doctor wouldn't even say it's safe. It's more accurate to say: the potential harm of a single x-ray is small/negligible, and the benefit of being able to correctly diagnose you and create an informed treatment plan is well worth that risk.

Crossing the street isn't completely safe, but if you need to get to the other side, you take that risk because it's worth it. But you shouldn't cross the street willy nilly for no reason, that would be stupidly dangerous. It's kind of like that.

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 5 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

There's a current disagreement about radiation dosing policy right now, too. One side things the current approach is fine, the other believes that we are so overly conservative that we are wasting a lot of resources avoiding doses that are inconsequential. This is most relevant if we want to build and operate more nuclear reactors (e.g. for power), but it might also change some x-ray practices.

But, there are few things that are absolutely safe. You can slip, fall, and die in the shower; you can "poison" yourself by drinking too much water. When a medical professional requests an x-ray, they believe the risk is worth the reward.

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 2 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

What is the argument against nuclear reactors and dosage?

Are you saying that people think they get any elevated radiation dosage around a nuclear power plant at all?

[–] TonyOstrich@lemmy.zip 3 points 10 hours ago

I'm not the OP, nor am I very good at succinctly summarizing what's in my head in a way that I'm confident would do the topic justice.

The specific term you probably want to look up is "Linear no threshold".

I think the video Kyle Hill did several months ago though covers the topic very well though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzdLdNRaPKc

I have some small nitpicks on how exactly he argued a couple of his points, but his over all point seems reasonable.

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 2 points 11 hours ago

Well, I think the general public probably is a bit confused about that. But, I think the disagreement is on the exposure of workers, and the practices around that.

IIRC, nuclear reactors for power have surprisingly high operating costs, even tho the fuel costs are quite low, and most of those costs are radiation controls. (And, no one is saying we need to eliminate controls, just dial them back a bit based on better science of how radiation affects humans.)