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:[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2016 12:37 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 > > >
