Paradoxically active ongoing research suggests that the same dose of (medically determined) radiation delivered over a very short period of time increases its efficacy against the cancer compared to damage to the surrounding tissue.

Here's one: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10640654/

It's interesting that the core of this effect - that large doses delivered on timescales of a second or less significantly reduce normal tissue toxicity - was actually observed over 40 years ago, e.g.:

https://radiation-research.kglmeridian.com/view/journals/rar...

Some of the authors of that work were still active when the "Flash" concept came around again, and to hear them tell the story they tried to get funding to test it in tumour-bearing mice, but both their lab heads and external funders were sure the effect would be the same in tumours as normal tissue, and so wouldn't fund the work.

They eventually moved on to other things, and it needed a few decades for someone with enough soft money to give it a go and kick off this new research field.

Is it relevant that the paper linked has been retracted?

> The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. An investigation by the journal found evidence of authorship manipulation. The Editors-in-Chief therefore no longer have confidence in the provenance and reliability of the article contents. The authors disagree with the decision to retract.

How's that paradoxical? Wouldn't TFA would seem to support findings of that sort?