Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

2016-06-26 Thread Jed Rothwell
Bob Cook wrote: One problem is that cancer is that radiation is not the only issue > associated with cellular damage. Mutagenic effects also occur in gene > cells and can be propagated into the population as a whole . . . > But, I believe those mutations are mainly

RE: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

2016-06-26 Thread Bob Cook
; Subject: Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation I think there probably is a relatively high threshold for ionizing radiation, below which no statistically significant increases in lukemia, Parkinsons, and other cancers will be found. The danger is that some p

RE: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

2016-06-25 Thread Russ George
17 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation Not only is there good evidence that the LNT theory is wrong, there is quite a lot of evidence for hormesis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/ "The observa

Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

2016-06-25 Thread a.ashfield
Not only is there good evidence that the LNT theory is wrong, there is quite a lot of evidence for hormesis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/ "The observation that the cancer mortality rate of the exposed population is only about 3 percent of the cancer mortality rate of

Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

2016-06-25 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence
On 06/25/2016 03:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: At the other extreme . . . I do not know whether radiation actually promotes health. I have heard it might, but I have not read the studies, so I cannot judge. But biology is full of surprises, so I would not discount the possibility. Dunno if

Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

2016-06-25 Thread Bob Higgins
I think there probably is a relatively high threshold for ionizing radiation, below which no statistically significant increases in lukemia, Parkinsons, and other cancers will be found. The danger is that some people may be extraordinarily sensitive and WILL develop these illnesses when exposed

Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

2016-06-25 Thread Jed Rothwell
People and all other species have been exposed to some radiation, from cosmic sources, the sun, and from things like radon and uranium on earth. Biological systems are incredibly good at self-repair. So it seems unlikely to me that low level exposure always causes significant or even measurable

Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

2016-06-25 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence
How much difference does this make, in practical terms? I'm not sure it's all that significant. If it's linear, then it's a tradeoff, and there's still a threshold below which it's not worth reducing radiation exposure, even if there is no "medical threshold". As an analogy which may help