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 caused by radiation. So we
;
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
2:17 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 ob
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 the
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 this'
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 to
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
har
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 t
Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation
On Friday, Biological Theory published the equivalent of a “bunker buster”
salvo in a decades-long war of words between scientists.
On one side are people who believe that there is no safe dose of radiation.
They assert that radiatio
9 matches
Mail list logo
