What is well know science today is thate unlike the radioprotection assumption, effect of dose is not at all linear without treshold.
in fact any agression, like oxygen, chemican aggressors, heat, sun, radiation, might cause DNA error. if the dose is very low, the cell detect the error and launch "apoptosis" (clean suicide). if dose get higher (the cell know that because of neighbor messaging) the cell use heat shock protein system to repair nicely all the errors. if errors get too numerous, the repair start to be dirty (just filling the hole). when it get worse, the cell stop doing anything and let it happens. the result with that system is that a small dose of radiation, sun, heat, chemical, might activate heat shock protein defense system, and help the body resist higher dose. This is probabloy the mechanisme behind some case of Hormesis observed. Maurice tubiana have written article on that subject. the only I have found is in french http://e2phy.in2p3.fr/2001/tubiana2.doc the tresholh that seems probable todazy is below 100mSv : nothing few 100mSv, long term negative effect (lower than usual bad behavior like overweight, alcohol, tobacco) but shot term hormesis protecting from high dose like 1Sv 1Sv well know short term disease 5Sv half death 8Sv all dead recent treatment might have changed the higher dose mortality despite the rumor no effect transmitted on descendant, but strong effect on foetus. half dose for kids about heavy dose, much above 1Sv, note the recent breakthrough tested on ices that allow to save from death, by avoiding infection from the intestine... for some Chernobyl thyroid cancer is only cause by stupidly allowing kid to drink contaminated milk from local contaminated cows. that is the point to manage in fukushima. 2012/7/24 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > Many people in Japan think that low level exposure to radioactivity in hot > springs is good for you. That includes many scientists. Hideo Ikegami > thought so. There may be something to it. > > We are evolved to survive low, natural levels, so I doubt they cause much > harm. > > Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > >> 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. > > > Survived the blast for how long? Thousands of people died in the months > following the blast. Some died from ordinary wounds but many others from > the effects of radiation. Various different effects, such as anemia. The > radiation caused many diseases other than cancer. I know some survivors who > have a lifetime of ill-health and weakness, although not cancer yet. > > Assume that "long term" means living more than 20 years after the blast. I > expect that group of people were either not exposed much, or they happened > to be extraordinarily healthy and resistant to the anemia and other > effects. In other words, weak people were killed off in the first year. > > Although the survivors have been intensely studied, I have some doubts > about this epidemiology. The results are tainted by politics on both sides. > Some what to emphasize the long term health damage; others want to downplay > it. Also, I think the group might be too small. Even with hundreds of > thousands of members it may not be large enough to detect statistically > significant variations of some forms of cancer. > > - Jed > >
