"Radiation Risk Overstated" reported in 2005 that women receiving radiation for breast cancer may no longer face an increased risk of potentially deadly heart damage from the treatment.46 In earlier decades, radiation doses were high enough, and inaccurate enough, to put the heart in jeopardy, but radiation therapy became much safer over the years.
a. If the null hypothesis states that radiation for breast cancer does not damage the heart, the report suggests that as of 2005, people may be committing which type of error: Type I or Type II?
b. What is the potential harm of thinking radiation for breast cancer damages the heart, when in fact it does not: avoiding beneficial treatment for breast cancer, or putting the heart in jeopardy?