I don't know the model they use for radiation impact, and I imagine they use the false LLNT law. http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/12/dna-repair-mechanism-works-much-better.html moreover it is not only false (lower dose have no toxicity), but the dose concept is false http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/05/prolonged-low-dose-radiation-study-at.html long exposition is harmless, compared to short pulse. (it is not new knowledge, but it was suppressed and public like LENR) eg: in french: in2p3 effet des faibles doses nucléaires tubiana<http://e2phy.in2p3.fr/2001/tubiana2.doc>
few hundred Sievert are in the intermediate zone that trigger hormesis, thus may have mixed good/bad effects. Hormesis is observed in place irradiated about 100mSv, less cancer, better immune system. see http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/background-radiation-levels.html and http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/ramsar.html ( Inhabitants who live in some houses in this area receive annual doses as high as 132 mSv from external terrestrial sources. Based on results obtained in studies on high background radiation areas of Ramsar, high levels of natural radiation may have some bio-positive effects such as enhancing radiation-resistance. More research is needed to assess if these bio-positive effects have any implication in radiation protection (Mortazavi et al. 2001). The risk from exposure to low-dose radiation has been highly politicized for a variety of reasons. This has led to a frequently exaggerated perception of the potential health effects, and to lasting public controversies. There are many other areas with high levels of background radiation around the world, and epidemiological studies have indicated that natural radiation in these areas is not harmful for the inhabitants. Results obtained in our study are consistent with the hypothesis that a threshold possibly separates the health effects of natural radiation from the harm of large doses. This threshold seems to be much higher than the greatest level of natural radiation. A travel to mars, with huge average dose is harmless probably compared to the risk of the travel itself. irradiation pulse may be more concerning, but give a high average dose, we can expect hormesis to protect from pulse. have to be studied. anyway, LLNT law is to be put in the toilet of history, like "CF cannot exist". 2013/6/2 Jouni Valkonen <[email protected]> > > On Jun 2, 2013, at 10:01 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > > Round trip to Mars would push radiation safety limits. Astronauts could > easily soak up their lifetime allowance > > That is true. But also Mars voyage might reduce the cancer risk of > smokers, because smokers are forced to quit smoking. Also cancer risk is > small compared to the risk that something critical goes wrong. > > How big does the reactor need to be to get to push the Mars rocket to its > destination in just a few weeks? > > Some calculations does require 200 MW reactor in order to get into Mars > less than one month. > > —Jouni >
