I think you're being too kind. The article is entirely one-sided. The title says lies, so it's fair game to call the content propaganda.
The facts on low-dose radiation exposure are pretty simple.
There is no useful direct evidence about the health effects of low doses of radiation, and there never will be. It's a needle in a haystack problem: the diseases caused by radiation are common, with large fluctuations; the effects of a small additional dose are small. The article claims that the impossibility of measuring outcomes is a reason to believe that small doses of radiation are harmless. It's wrong. No one knows.
There is watertight, laws-of-physics level evidence about the effects of radiation on biological tissues. There is an expert consensus on how those kinds of tissue damage lead to cancer and other diseases. This evidence supports the linear no threshold model.
The weak link is the pathology: that expert consensus could be wrong. I'm a physicist, so I'm not qualified to hold an opinion. I've never heard a specific reason to think it's wrong.
Those are the ises. For the rest of this post, suppose that the linear-no-threshold model is correct (as the available evidence suggests). The oughts that follow are also very murky.
Everyone is exposed to radiation in their daily life, and lots of lives are shortened by the effects. When you are exposed to a tiny bit of extra radiation, you are a tiny bit more likely to die from radiation; there are much worse hazards that you should worry about first.
When everyone is exposed to a tiny bit of extra radiation, many people will die prematurely. It's universally agreed that those people are just as valuable as other people, exposed to rarer and more spectacular risks, who a lot of money is spent to save. If a few less razors were confiscated at airports, and aircraft occupants were a bit better shielded from radiation, more lives could be saved overall.
Any question like that is bound to be politically controversial.
This problem isn't specific to timezones. In general, you did X on the basis that A was B, and now you know that that A is actually C. The strategies to handle that are quite interesting:
I succeeded at this. My academic physics career petered out, then I stumbled into an industry role with almost as much physics as I was doing in my quantum mechanics postdoc.
The jobs you're looking for are rare, but they do exist. There must be a bunch of them in this project, for example:
In my case, the unicorn factor worked both ways. The job was advertised for a year before my hiking partner encouraged me to apply, and it took a few months more before I did. From that point, the job was easy to get.
In this job market, supply and demand are reasonably well matched; the problem is that the market is very illiquid. Science jobs are rare to begin with, and people stay in them for decades, so vacancies are even rarer.
On the one hand, a programmer at my company who was interested and capable of switching to optics could have had my role by asking for it. On the other hand, if you joined the company as a programmer, you would have had to wait 5 years for an optics role to come up.
So my advice is to stay in touch with your friends from the earth science days, and expect this to take a long time. Good luck!
Why use a virtual machine when you have a real machine? It takes some cleverness to do safely, but the AI lab are a lot clever, and they've found a way:
"Vx32 is a user-mode library that can be linked into arbitrary applications that wish to create secure, isolated execution environments in which to run untrusted extensions or plug-ins implemented as native x86 code."
The facts on low-dose radiation exposure are pretty simple.
There is no useful direct evidence about the health effects of low doses of radiation, and there never will be. It's a needle in a haystack problem: the diseases caused by radiation are common, with large fluctuations; the effects of a small additional dose are small. The article claims that the impossibility of measuring outcomes is a reason to believe that small doses of radiation are harmless. It's wrong. No one knows.
There is watertight, laws-of-physics level evidence about the effects of radiation on biological tissues. There is an expert consensus on how those kinds of tissue damage lead to cancer and other diseases. This evidence supports the linear no threshold model.
The weak link is the pathology: that expert consensus could be wrong. I'm a physicist, so I'm not qualified to hold an opinion. I've never heard a specific reason to think it's wrong.
Those are the ises. For the rest of this post, suppose that the linear-no-threshold model is correct (as the available evidence suggests). The oughts that follow are also very murky.
Everyone is exposed to radiation in their daily life, and lots of lives are shortened by the effects. When you are exposed to a tiny bit of extra radiation, you are a tiny bit more likely to die from radiation; there are much worse hazards that you should worry about first.
When everyone is exposed to a tiny bit of extra radiation, many people will die prematurely. It's universally agreed that those people are just as valuable as other people, exposed to rarer and more spectacular risks, who a lot of money is spent to save. If a few less razors were confiscated at airports, and aircraft occupants were a bit better shielded from radiation, more lives could be saved overall.
Any question like that is bound to be politically controversial.