The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
even if you look at pilots who do constant flights across the poles because you're going to get the most radiation going over the pole to my knowledge there's no convincing data that suggest those people are't an increased risk of cancer either
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
even though they can get a higher dose there's been no proven increase in cancer in those types of populations even in you know flight attendants or anything like that
even though they get a higher dose there's been no proven increase in cancer in those types of populations even in you know flight attendance or anything like that