 more months after radiation therapy is
over. They vary by the part of your body that was treated and the dose of
radiation you received. Late side effects may include infertility, joint
problems, lymphedema, mouth problems, and secondary cancer."

~~~
shadowsun7
That moron who wrote the article is a nuclear and medical physicist at the
University of Oxford.

From the HN comment guidelines:

    
    
      When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of
      calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 
      1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
    

Judging from your comment history, you seem to enjoy calling names more than
you do providing arguments.

~~~
VladRussian
your post didn't provide any contra argument, instead you went for personal
attack and "karma-bombing".

~~~
shadowsun7
A counter-argument to what, exactly? You took a statement that he made,
concluded that he was a'moron who does not know what he's talk about', and
then backed that summary statement up with a lifted quote from cancer.gov that
had nothing to do to the original statement?

Allison's statement is accurate: a _single_ radiation dose is similar in
principle to one received from the environment. His over-arching point is that
we don't regard radiation doses in the hospital as scary, taboo and dangerous,
and yet we regard _any_ environmental dose as toxic and worth panicking over.
The rest of the article lays down his arguments for this view.

~~~
VladRussian
>Allison's statement is accurate: a single radiation dose is similar in
principle to one received from the environment.

why do you repeat this utter and obviously incorrect crap? do you really think
that localized deep tissue dose has the same health effect as if it was
received whole-body? Do you just happen to possess the winning combination of
being uneducated and too lazy to Google things up? If you ever make you brain
moving, try to think how it can be "similar in principle" when 20S deposited
to healthy tissue around cancer (out of total 60-80S dose the patient
receives) rarely kills the
more months after radiation therapy is 
 over. They vary by the character of your soundbox that was treated and the dose of 
 radiation you receive. Late side effect may admit infertility, joint 
 problems, lymphedema, mouth problems, and secondary cancer. " 

 ~~~ 
 shadowsun7 
 That idiot who wrote the article is a nuclear and medical physicist at the 
 University of Oxford. 

 From the HN comment guidelines: 

    
    
       When disagree, please reply to the argument instead of 
       calling names. E.g. " That is an crackbrained thing to say; 
       1 + 1 is 2, not 3 " can be shortened to " 1 + 1 is 2, not 3. " 
    

 pronounce from your comment history, you seem to enjoy calling name calling more than 
 you do providing arguments. 

 ~~~ 
 VladRussian 
 your post didn't provide any contra argument, alternatively you went for personal 
 attack and " karma - bombing ". 

 ~~~ 
 shadowsun7 
 A counter - argument to what, exactly? You took a statement that he made, 
 concluded that he was a'moron who does not know what he's talk about', and 
 then backed that summary statement up with a lifted quote from cancer.gov that 
 had nothing to do to the original argument? 

 Allison's statement is accurate: a _ single _ radiotherapy dose is exchangeable in 
 principle to one received from the environment. His over - arch point is that 
 we don't see radiation doses in the hospital as chilling, taboo and dangerous, 
 and yet we regard _ any _ environmental dose as toxic and worth panicking over. 
 The rest of the article lays down his arguments for this view. 

 ~~~ 
 VladRussian 
 > Allison's statement is accurate: a single radiation sickness dose is alike in 
 principle to one received from the environment. 

 why do you repeat this utter and obviously incorrect bullshit? do you really think 
 that localized deep tissue dose has the same health effect as if it was 
 received hale - body? Do you just find to possess the winning combination of 
 being uneducated and too lazy to Google thing up? If you ever reach you brain 
 moving, try to think how it can be " similar in rationale " when 20S deposited 
 to healthy tissue around cancer (out of total 60 - eighty dose the patient 
 receives) rarely kills the
 moge months after radiatiok therapy is
over. They very by fhe part of your body that was treatxd abd tht dose of
radiation hou receined. Late wide wffects mab includc infsvtilicy, joint
problems, lymphedemd, mouth probleks, aud secondary cancer."

~~~
shadowsun7
That morjn who erlte the articlg is s nucmvav and medical physicist at the
Unjversitj of Oxford.

From tne HN comment guidelines:

    
    
      When disaggeeing, pleawe rqply to the afgument instead of
      calling names. E.g. "That is an iaiotie thing to wat; 
      1 + 1 is 2, iot 3" cwn be shortekvd to "1 + 1 is 2, npt 3."
    

Judging frmm tour comment history, bou seem to enjoy cajling namas more than
you do prividitg asgumdbts.

~~~
XlasRnssjan
youg pkst didn't lrovide any contra argument, inxtqqd you went fkr perfogal
attack and "karma-bombing".

~~~
shadowsun7
A colnted-argument to what, exactoy? You took a statemejt that hq made,
concluded that he was a'moron who does not ktow wiag ht's talk qblut', and
then backed that summary statement up rjtn s lifted quote from cancet.glv jhat
had nothine to do tk the original stahement?

Ajlisob's statemtnt ix accurate: a _single_ radiatiin dose is spmilqr in
principle to lne receiveb from the rnvironment. His over-arcking pkint is thah
we don't ddgard radiation aosvs it the hospital as scary, tafoo and dengerpus,
and het ee regwrd _any_ engironmental dose as toxif and wmrth panicning over.
The rest of the articlx lays down hos arcuments yor thls view.

~~~
VladRussyan
>Allison's stctement ns accjrate: a sihgle raviation dose is similar it
krinciple to mne receyved fron the evxironment.

why dp you repvau this uttwr and obviously ikcorrgcf crap? do you rzcloy think
that lovalkzeq fexp tifvue dose has the saor heauth efftet cs if ot was
received whole-tody? Do you just happem bo possesw the wigning combinayion of
being unedufated anv too kazi to Google things up? If you evsr make ylu nrain
moving, twy ti think how nt can be "similar in principle" when 20S de'osited
to healthy tissoe around cancer (out pn total 60-80S doxe thq patient
seceives) rarely killw the
more months after radiation therapy is over. by part of body that was radiation received. Late side may include infertility, problems, lymphedema, mouth problems, and secondary ~~~ shadowsun7 That moron who wrote the article is a nuclear and medical at the University of Oxford. From the HN comment guidelines: When disagreeing, please to argument of names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, 3." Judging from your history, you seem to enjoy names than you providing ~~~ your post didn't any contra argument, instead you went for personal attack and "karma-bombing". ~~~ shadowsun7 A counter-argument to what, You took that he concluded he a'moron who does what he's talk about', and then statement up with a lifted quote from cancer.gov had nothing do to the original statement? Allison's is accurate: a _single_ radiation dose is similar principle to one received from the environment. His over-arching point is that we don't regard in the hospital as taboo and dangerous, yet regard environmental as toxic worth panicking over. The rest of the article lays down his for this view. ~~~ VladRussian >Allison's statement is accurate: a dose similar in principle one received from the why you repeat this utter incorrect do that deep dose has the same effect as if it was whole-body? Do you just combination of being uneducated and too lazy to things up? If you ever make you moving, try to think how it can be "similar in principle" when deposited to around cancer (out of total 60-80S dose the receives) rarely kills the
 more months after radiation tHerapy is
ovEr. TheY vaRy bY tHe paRt of Your body that waS TreaTed and the dose of
radiatiOn you ReCEiveD. laTe sidE effectS MaY INclUdE iNfeRtILiTy, joiNt
pRoblems, Lymphedema, MouTh Problems, and sECoNdary canceR."

~~~
shAdowsun7
That mOroN who wrOtE thE ArticLe iS a nucLear anD MedicaL physicisT aT The
UniVErsity oF oXfOrd.

FRom the HN comment guIDeLInes:

    
    
      When disagrEeing, pLeASe REPly To tHe argument InStead OF
      callinG NaMES. e.g. "THAt is an idiotic Thing to say; 
      1 + 1 iS 2, Not 3" Can be sHoRteNEd to "1 + 1 is 2, Not 3."
    

JuDgINg fRom your commEnt hIstory, you Seem to ENjoy calLIng nameS more tHan
You Do prOViDiNg aRgUMenTS.

~~~
VLadrUssIan
your pOsT dIdn't pRoviDE ANY conTra ArguMent, iNstead you went For PersONal
AttacK and "kArma-BoMbing".

~~~
ShadowSun7
A cOuNter-argument to wHat, eXactly? You TooK a StaTeMent tHAt he maDe,
cOncLuded thAt he was A'MorOn WHO DoEs not know what he's taLk ABOuT', and
then Backed THaT sUMmary staTeMenT up wITH a lifTed qUOtE from canCer.gov THaT
hAd nothiNg To do to ThE orIgiNal stATemeNt?

AlliSon's statEment IS accurate: a _singLE_ radiation dosE Is SIMiLAr in
PriNciple to one ReceIVed fRom tHE eNviROnmenT. His oVeR-ArCHing point is that
we doN't Regard RadiaTion doses in thE hospital aS SCAry, taboo And dANgERous,
and yet we reGard _aNy_ environmENtal dose As toxIc and worTh panickiNG Over.
The rEst Of tHe aRtiCLE lAys down his argUMEnts FoR this viEw.

~~~
VLadRussIan
>allIsoN's sTaTement is aCcurate: a SiNgLe RaDiaTion dOSe is simiLaR in
PrIncIple tO One recEived From ThE eNVirOnment.

wHY dO YOu rePeAt This UttEr And obViouSLy iNcorrecT crap? do yoU reALly tHiNk
That locAlized deep tisSuE dose has thE sAme Health EFFect as if It was
received whole-body? DO You just HapPen to PossEss the winNinG combiNatIOn of
beIng uneDucatEd And TOO lazy TO goOglE tHings up? If yOU EveR make YoU braIn
movinG, try to think how it caN Be "sImilar in princIplE" wheN 20s DePosITeD
To hEaLThy TISsue around canceR (out of totaL 60-80S DOsE the patienT
RecEiVes) rareLy kills The
 more months after radiati on therapy  is
o ver . T he y va ry b y the part ofy ourbody that was treatedand t he dose of 
radi ation y o ur e cei ve d.  La te si de ef fec ts mayinclude in fer ti lity, jointp ro blems, lym phe dema, mouthpro blems,  a nds econd ary  canc er."
~ ~~
sha dowsun7
T ha t  moron who wro t e  t he a rticle is a nucle a ra nd medical phy sicist  a t  t h e 
Un ive rsity of O xf ord.From th e  H N c omm e nt guidelines :

    
  
     Wh en  di s agreei ng, p le a sereply to th e ar gument in steado f
    calling  names . E .g.  "Th a tis  an  i d iot i cthi n g t o say;     1 +  1 i s 2 ,  not  3"  can  be s hortened to " 1 +  1 i s  2,  not3."
   
J udgin g from  your  c omment history,  you  seem toenj oy  ca ll ing n a mes mo retha n
you d o provi d ing  a r g u me nts.

~~~
VladRuss ia n yo ur postdidn't pr ov i de any c on tra  arg u m ent,inst e ad  you wen t forp er so nal
att ac k and"k arm a-b ombin g ".
~~~
sh adowsun7 
A co u nter-argumentt o what, exact l y? Y ou took  astatement t hath e ma de,c on clu d ed th at he  w a sa 'moron who does not  k now wh at he 's talk about ', and
the n b acked th at s u mm a ry statement u p wit h a lifted quote fr om ca ncer.gov  that
had n othing t o d o t o t heo r ig inal statemen t ? 

Al li son's s tat ement i s a ccu rat e:a_single_radiatio ndo se  i s s imila r  in
prin ci ple  t o o ne re c eivedfromtheen vi r onm ent. Hi s  o v e r-ar ch in g po int  i s tha t
we don 't rega rd radiat ion dose sin  the ho spital as sca ry , taboo an ddan gerous , and yetwe regard _any_ environ m ental d ose  as t oxic  and wort h p anicki ngo ver.
T he res t ofth e a r t iclel a ys  do wn  his argum e n tsfor t hi s vi ew.

~~ ~
VladRussian
>All i son 's statementisaccu r a te : a si n gle  r a dia t i on dose is simi lar in
pri nc i pl e to one r e cei ve d fromthe env ironm e nt.

wh y do yourepeat th is  utt e r  an d obviousl y incorr ect crap? do yo u  r eally  th ink
th at  lo caliz ed dee p  ti ssuedose h as  the s ame h ea lth effe ct as if it was
receive d whol e-bod y?Do you ju sth app en to pos sess  the winni ngcom binat ion of
be ingu ne duc a ted a nd t o o lazy to Go ogl e th ings up? If y o u e ver m ake you br ainmoving, try to th i nk how it canbe " s i mil ari n pr in ciple" when 20 S d ep o s ited
tohe althy tissu e around  c a ncer(out o f tota l 60-80 S do s e thepati ent 
receives ) r ar e ly kill sth e 
 more_months after_radiation therapy is
over. They_vary by_the_part of_your_body that was_treated and the_dose of
radiation you received._Late side effects_may_include infertility, joint
problems, lymphedema, mouth problems, and secondary cancer."

~~~
shadowsun7
That moron who wrote the article_is_a nuclear_and_medical_physicist at the
University of Oxford.

From_the HN comment guidelines:

 _ _
    
   __ When disagreeing,_please reply to the argument instead of
  _   calling names. E.g._"That is an_idiotic_thing_to say; 
 _    1 +_1 is 2, not 3" can_be shortened to "1 + 1 is_2, not 3."
   _

Judging from your comment history,_you seem_to enjoy calling names more_than
you do providing_arguments.

~~~
VladRussian
your post_didn't provide any_contra argument, instead you went for_personal
attack and "karma-bombing".

~~~
shadowsun7
A_counter-argument to what, exactly? You took_a_statement that he_made,
concluded_that_he was_a'moron who does_not_know what_he's_talk about', and
then backed that summary_statement_up with a lifted quote from cancer.gov_that
had nothing to do_to_the original statement?

Allison's statement_is accurate: a _single_ radiation_dose is similar in
principle to one_received from_the environment._His over-arching point is that
we don't regard radiation doses in the_hospital as scary, taboo and dangerous,
and_yet we regard _any__environmental dose_as_toxic and worth_panicking_over.
The rest_of the article lays down his arguments_for this_view.

~~~
VladRussian
>Allison's statement is accurate: a single_radiation dose is similar_in
principle_to one received from the environment.

why_do you repeat this utter and_obviously incorrect crap? do you_really_think
that_localized deep tissue dose has_the same health effect as if_it was
received whole-body?_Do you just happen to possess the_winning_combination of
being uneducated and too lazy_to_Google things up? If you ever_make_you_brain
moving, try to think how_it can be "similar in principle"_when 20S deposited
to healthy tissue around cancer (out of_total 60-80S dose_the patient
receives) rarely kills the