/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11413954
>Organism gets exposed to radiation
>Radiation breaks a DNA chain in a cell by forming a thymine dimer
>DNA turns into a non-functional sequence of nucleotides
>Enzymes have to fix the nucleotide sequence in order to have the cell continue working properly
>Thymine dimers forming along the DNA polymer increase the need for enzymes to replace segments of nucleotides
>Chances of causing an accidental mutation increase because DNA continues to get dismantled and reassembled
>Eventual mutation happens
And that's how you get cancer

>>11414405
I understand how you can get cancer immediately due to radiation but how do you get cancer 50 years after radiation exposure?

>>11413954
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Post-attack_casualties
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_data_for_low-linear_energy_transfer_radiation
Basically increased incidence.

>>11414458
Multiple mutations are required before a monoclonal cell line becomes cancerous. Specifically, they need to be capable of independent growth even in the presence of growth suppressing factors, evading the immune system, eliminating normal apoptosis, immortalization, and invading other tissues. Some of those can be found in pre-cancerous lesions and increase the risk of developing other mutations that either directly contribute to oncogenesis or promote genome instability that increases the likelihood of other mutations that will.

>>11414461
Wikipedia is a brainlet source with no credibility that you should use with caution or to find potentially superior sources. You also miss the point. I am aware of increased incidence claims and cohort studies.

>>11414558
Thanks, you and >>11414405 are very helpful. I appreciate your explanations.

>>11413954
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect_(radiobiology)

>>11414567
>Where is the proof that exposure to radiation increases cancer risk throughout life?
>You also miss the point.
I gave you multiple proofs that people who were exposed to nuclear radiations were more likely to get cancer. Precisely on point.

A thread died for this and people like you are the cancer.

>>11414637
>correlation = causation

>>11414662
You cant have causation without correlation

>>11414662
>dudes enter chernobyl
>die as their body literally melts
>numerous kids born with cancer
>NOOOO WHERE IS THE PROOF????

>>11414675
>You cant have causation without correlation
I get where you're coming from but you can easily construct causation without correlation mathematically and you can experience it when observing nature, especially in small sample sizes and when there are many variables.

>>11414567
>Wikipedia is a brainlet source with no credibility
If you really think that, you are the brainlet. Who do you think writes these niche articles?

>>11415644
>Who do you think writes these niche articles?
Biased fanatics, lazy undergrads and loser turboautists.

>>11414662