In following up on a story in the Sci-News today, mention was made of the so-called "Radiation Paradox." In fact there are two versions. If there is longer-term hope for the residents around Fukushima, healthwise, this could be relevant.
A region around Ramsar, Iran on the Caspian has the highest level of natural radioactivity in the world, due to the presence of radioactive hot springs. The background is 200 times normal and can reach levels in excess of 260 mSv. Radiation workers at reactor sites are limited to less than this level, but the local population cannot avoid it. Worst of all, the radiation can be in the drinking water. Most of the radiation in the Ramsar is due to radium-226, which is dissolved in water of hot springs. However, in times past (and present) these hot springs were visited by large numbers of sick people for their health benefits. Which is one paradox. There is a bona fide benefit for short term radium exposure that goes back to an age when pneumonia was rampant. In effect, the radiation kills the infectious agents faster than it kills the host. The high level of radiation at Ramsar, even over lifetime exposure, does not seem to have caused ill effects on the residents of the area, compared to other areas of Iran. But can the figures be trusted? There is official evidence, in fact, that the exposure has made the locals slightly more resistant to radiation ill effects ... this has been called the "radiation paradox". Yet - long term study of the survivors of the atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have indicated the exposure after a bomb can cause a slight excess in cancer rates in the exposed individuals who survived the blast, but it is surprisingly small. In a 1990 study, the Radiation Effects Research Foundation, there were 7827 cancer deaths in the survivor population of 86,000. But that is not excessive. The conclusion was that the A-bomb radiation "might have" caused 421 "excess" cancers (over normal expectations). A few other analysts, possibly funded partially by Tepco, have stated that the Hiroshima rate is actually lower than in comparable parts of Japan. As with "climate change," radiation exposure data and its analysis, is a subject which is "highly charged" so to speak... ... lies, damn lies, and statistics... Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
