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

[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 caused by radiation. So we are
back to radiation being the root cause, only it takes place over
generations.

- Jed

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

[Bob Cook]

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, if the particular mutation is not 
fatal to begin with.  This is a problem for small populations of people who do 
not have a large gene pool to select from.

The particular isotopes that cause mutagenic issues are those that are 
incorporated into the DNA itself—H-3 and C-14 are examples.


An experiment that I followed in the early 1990’s on the vole populations 
around Chernobyl indicated viable mutations caused by H-3 were at a centration 
of about 200 picocuries per liter of the water being consumed.  The limit set 
for cancer deaths is 20,000 picocuries per liter.

The self correction mechanism in cell with two chromosomes is not the same as 
those with only one chromosome—gene cells.

Icelanders and tribal folks be careful.

Bob Cook


Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Bob Higgins<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2016 12:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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
people may be extraordinarily sensitive and WILL develop these illnesses
when exposed to doses below the threshold (wherever you place it).  Since
radiations are unseen and hard for the general populace to detect and
quantize their dose, how do we protect the canaries in our midst?  Today it
is unlikely there is any way to medically screen who may be extraordinarily
sensitive to ionizing radiations.  Before a threshold can be set to allow
extraneous radiations into our environment we must know how sensitive the
canaries will prove to be.  We cannot just kill the canaries for the profit
of the masses.

OTOH, if the "canaries" are just a few ppm; as a society, it may be to our
net benefit to spend the money to detect who will be sensitive to ionizing
radiations and then take extraordinary means to educate them and give them
the means to protect themselves.

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
wrote:

> 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 to clarify this, consider that *there is no
> threshold for automobile accidents*.  No matter how slowly everyone is
> forced to drive, there will *still* be accidents.  Fatalities presumably
> have a direct relationship to the speed we allow people to travel at, and
> reducing that speed will *always* save lives.  But that doesn't lead to
> the conclusion that we need to reduce the speed limit everywhere to zero
> and force everyone to walk, because *it is a tradeoff*.  *Nothing* in
> life is entirely safe, there are always fatalities, and all we need to do
> is reduce a particular risk factor enough so that it's small relative to
> other risks we face, and we can henceforth ignore it.
>
> In other words, even if the dose relationship is linear, there's still an
> *economic* threshold effect, even if the "OMG RADIATION time to PANIC!"
> crowd refuses to see it.
>
>
> On 06/25/2016 10:39 AM, H LV wrote:
>
> 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 radiation protection regulations should
> continue using a linear, no threshold model.
>
> The other side includes those who say that sufficient evidence has been
> gathered to show there are dose levels below which there is no permanent
> damage. They say the evidence indicates the possibility of a modest health
> improvement over a range of low doses and dose rates. They believe that the
> LNT model is obsolete and does not do a good job of protecting people from
> harm.
> ​ ​
>
>
> (​more at link)​
>
> ​ ​
> ​
>
> <http://www.forbes.com/sites/rodadams/2016/06/19/powerful-shot-against-believers-in-no-safe-dose-of-radiation>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/rodadams/2016/06/19/powerful-shot-against-believers-in-no-safe-dose-of-radiation
>
>
>

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

[Russ George]

Or in more direct wording the benefit of the mentioned radiation was a greater 
than 30 fold reduction in cancer when compared to those people who were not 
"accidentally' exposed to long term Co60 radiation.  Children born to parents 
exposed to the radiation showed 14 times fewer congenital defects! The list 
goes on. The whole topic of radiation and humans has been forever the victim of 
lies by those with economic and political power aspirations, avarice, and 
arrogance.

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield [mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net] 
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2016 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 observation that the cancer mortality rate of the exposed population is 
only about 3 percent of the cancer mortality rate of the general public" (!)

I know this paper was challenged but it was in general terms, rather like you 
know AGW is true because the consensus says so.

LNT is the safe, conservative theory, but what most people don't realize is 
just how much money it costs, that is probably unnecessary.

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

[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 the 
general public" (!)


I know this paper was challenged but it was in general terms, rather 
like you know AGW is true because the consensus says so.


LNT is the safe, conservative theory, but what most people don't realize 
is just how much money it costs, that is probably unnecessary.

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

[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 this'll upload -- I can't recall what the threshold is. Worth 
it if it does.

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

[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 to doses below the threshold (wherever you place it).  Since
radiations are unseen and hard for the general populace to detect and
quantize their dose, how do we protect the canaries in our midst?  Today it
is unlikely there is any way to medically screen who may be extraordinarily
sensitive to ionizing radiations.  Before a threshold can be set to allow
extraneous radiations into our environment we must know how sensitive the
canaries will prove to be.  We cannot just kill the canaries for the profit
of the masses.

OTOH, if the "canaries" are just a few ppm; as a society, it may be to our
net benefit to spend the money to detect who will be sensitive to ionizing
radiations and then take extraordinary means to educate them and give them
the means to protect themselves.

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence 
wrote:

> 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 to clarify this, consider that *there is no
> threshold for automobile accidents*.  No matter how slowly everyone is
> forced to drive, there will *still* be accidents.  Fatalities presumably
> have a direct relationship to the speed we allow people to travel at, and
> reducing that speed will *always* save lives.  But that doesn't lead to
> the conclusion that we need to reduce the speed limit everywhere to zero
> and force everyone to walk, because *it is a tradeoff*.  *Nothing* in
> life is entirely safe, there are always fatalities, and all we need to do
> is reduce a particular risk factor enough so that it's small relative to
> other risks we face, and we can henceforth ignore it.
>
> In other words, even if the dose relationship is linear, there's still an
> *economic* threshold effect, even if the "OMG RADIATION time to PANIC!"
> crowd refuses to see it.
>
>
> On 06/25/2016 10:39 AM, H LV wrote:
>
> 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 radiation protection regulations should
> continue using a linear, no threshold model.
>
> The other side includes those who say that sufficient evidence has been
> gathered to show there are dose levels below which there is no permanent
> damage. They say the evidence indicates the possibility of a modest health
> improvement over a range of low doses and dose rates. They believe that the
> LNT model is obsolete and does not do a good job of protecting people from
> harm.
> ​ ​
>
>
> (​more at link)​
>
> ​ ​
> ​
>
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/rodadams/2016/06/19/powerful-shot-against-believers-in-no-safe-dose-of-radiation
>
>
>

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

[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
harm.

We are exposed to elemental toxins such as arsenic, yet even people with
slightly elevated levels of arsenic are often okay. As far as anyone can
see their health and longevity is not affected. Then again, you cannot run
a person's life over from scratch to find out if he might have lived a few
years longer with a slightly lower level of arsenic.

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.

- Jed

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

[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 to clarify this, consider that /there is no 
threshold for automobile accidents/.  No matter how slowly everyone is 
forced to drive, there will /still/ be accidents.  Fatalities presumably 
have a direct relationship to the speed we allow people to travel at, 
and reducing that speed will /always/ save lives.  But that doesn't lead 
to the conclusion that we need to reduce the speed limit everywhere to 
zero and force everyone to walk, because /it is a tradeoff/. _Nothing_ 
in life is entirely safe, there are always fatalities, and all we need 
to do is reduce a particular risk factor enough so that it's small 
relative to other risks we face, and we can henceforth ignore it.


In other words, even if the dose relationship is linear, there's still 
an /economic/ threshold effect, even if the "OMG RADIATION time to 
PANIC!" crowd refuses to see it.



On 06/25/2016 10:39 AM, H LV wrote:

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 radiation protection regulations should 
continue using a linear, no threshold model.


The other side includes those who say that sufficient evidence has 
been gathered to show there are dose levels below which there is no 
permanent damage. They say the evidence indicates the possibility of a 
modest health improvement over a range of low doses and dose rates. 
They believe that the LNT model is obsolete and does not do a good job 
of protecting people from harm.

​ ​


(​more at link)​

​ ​
​
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rodadams/2016/06/19/powerful-shot-against-believers-in-no-safe-dose-of-radiation