Saying something like "this is going to be more accurate" at the start of a scientific presentation is like opening your legs and asking michael phelps to take a running kick and land his size 19s directly onto your testicles.

This was a more detailed explanation of the processes that must be considered, but i hope he has some significant evidence to show that it's more accurate. I suspect he meant to say detailed but he left his ego unsupervised at the keyboard.

He did say there was going to be a part 2.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, August 19th, 2012 9:53am PDT - promote requested by kulpims.

The linear no threshold model for low dose exposure cancer risk is falling out of favor in the scientific community btw, imma upvote because all of this other illustrations are really excellent. The correlation between amounts of cancer and low dose radiation in many new and old studies seems to point to some threshold where low dose presents no harm. More studies need to be done to find exactly what this is. LNT is still ok for determining upper bounds of risk, but shouldn't be used for lower bound analysis. Which means to say a study could say 100 people have a risk of cancer deaths, but there is also possibility that the number could be 0. More studies into thresholds or even hormesis need to be conducted

I think ill stick to the "your hand will get vaporized" idea myself.