Radiation Hormesis

Chronic Radiation Is Beneficial to Human Beings

Chronic radiation is defined as the radiation received slowly or in a low-dose-rate from various sources. It is completely different in nature to the acute gamma or neutron radiation generated from the atomic bomb explosions that occurred in Japan at the end of World War II. Tantalizing insights from people living in higher-than-normal background radiation areas in the world and from nuclear energy workers receiving excess radiation over long years have suggested that chronic radiation might paradoxically be beneficial to humans. However, in the absence of an epidemiological study, it has been impossible to conclude whether chronic radiation is harmless or indeed beneficial to human beings. Fortuitously, an incredible Co-60 contamination incident occurred in Taiwan 21 years ago, which provided the data necessary to demonstrate that chronic radiation is beneficial to human beings.

The contamination occurred during the recycling of metal scrap when a Co-60 source was mixed with metal scrap, melted and drawn into steel bars in the mill. Unaware of the contamination, the steel bars were ultimately used in construction of more than 180 buildings in 1982-84. Most buildings were partitioned into about 1,700 apartments for dwelling, and some buildings for other purpose. The first contaminated apartment was discovered in 1992. The residents in the apartments totaled 10,000 individuals who had been exposed to chronic radiation for at least 9 years and as long as 21 years.

The beneficial health effects of radiation observed in the Taiwan Co-60 contamination incident are so unique, they could also coincidentally explain the theory developed by Dr. T.D. Luckey, and his Complete Dose-Response Curve as shown in the last page of his book, “Radiation Hormesis 1991.” The dose of chronic radiation of about 100 mSv/y is optimum to health with up to 10 Sv/y still being in the hormetic range. Dr. Luckey predicted in his paper at the 1999 American Nuclear Society annual meeting in Boston that if the American population received a supplemental radiation dose through the public health service of about 55 mSv, 49 % of the cancer deaths of the US population (about 200,000 Americans) could be prevented every year. Of course, many people were shocked by his suggestion. However, findings from this study suggest the potential of radioactive vaccines to prevent cancers.

Extensive Evidence Suggesting Hormesis

1. Experimental Evidence

1.1. Cancer Prevention

Bhattarcharjee in 1996 showed that when the mice preirradiated with just adapting doses of 1 cGy/day for 5 days (without a challenge dose), thymic lymphoma was induced in 16% of the animals (Bhattarcharjee 1996). Interstingly, when preirradiated mice were exposed to a 2 Gy challenge dose, thymic lymphoma was induced again in 16% of the animals. However, the challenge dose alone, induced thymic lymphoma in 46% of the mice. From these results, it can be concluded that the low dose preirradiation possibly cancel the induction of thymic lymphoma by the 2 Gy challenge dose. In 1996, Azzam and his colleagues showed that a single exposure of C3H 10T1/2 cells to doses as low as 0.1 cGy reduces the risk of neoplastic transformations. They suggested that a single low-dose at background or occupational exposurelevels, may reduce cancer risk. Recently, Redpath and his co-workers haveconfirmed the findings of Azzam and his coworkers (Azzam et al. 1996). To test the generality of the observations of Azzam and his colleagues, they used the Hela x skin fibroblast human hybrid cell. Using a similar experimental protocol, they demonstrated a significantly reduced transformation frequency for adapted to unirradiated cells (pooled data from four separate experiments).In addition, recently Mitchel and his co-workers in Canada have indicated that a low dose preirradiation (10 cGy, 0.5 Gy/h) modifies latency for radiation induced myeloid leukemia in CBA/H mice after exposure to a 1 Gy chronic radiation exposure (Mitchel et al. 1999). They showed that the latent period for development of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) was significantly increased by the prior low radiation dose. Interestingly, according to T.D. Luckey one third of all cancer deaths are premature and preventable by low-level ionizing radiation (Luckey 1994, 1997).

1.2. Survival Rate

In 1996, Yonezawa and his colleagues indicated that when 21-ICR mice were exposed to a 8 Gy of X-rays, about 30% of the animals survived 30 days after the irradiation. However, when mice preirradiated with 5 cGy of X-rays, the survival rate increased to about 70% (Yonezawa et al. 1996).

2. Epidemiological Evidence
Although radiation hormesis data are still incomplete, extensive epidemiological studies have indicated that radiation hormesis is really exist. A briefreview on this irrefutable evidence is as follows:

2.1. Japanese studies

1-According to UNSCEAR report (1994), among A-bomb survivors from Hiroshimaand Nagazaki who received doses lower than 200 mSv, there was no increase in the number of total cancer death. Mortality caused by leukemia was evenlower in this population at doses below 100 mSv than age-matched controlcohorts.
2-Mifune (1992) (Mifune et al. 1992) and his co-workers indicated that in a spa area (Misasa), with an average indoor radon level of 35 Bq/m3, the lung cancer incidence was about 50% of that in a low-level radon region. Their results also showed that in the above mentioned high background radiation area, the mortality rate caused by all types of cancer was 37% lower.
3-According to Mine et al. (1981), among A-bomb survivors from Nagasaki, in some age categories, the observed annual rate of death is less than what is statistically expected.
4-Kumatori and his colleagues (Kumatori et al. 1980) reported that according to their 25 year follow up study of Japanese fishermen who were heavily contaminated by plutunium (hydrogen bomb test at Bikini), no one died from cancer.

2.2. Background Radiation Studies

1-In an Indian study, it was observed that in areas with a high-background radiation level, the incidence of cancer and also the mortality rate due to cancer was significantly less than similar areas with a low backgroundradiation level (Nambi and Soman 1987).
2-In a very large scale study in U.S.A, it was found that the mortality rate due to all malignancies was lower in states with higher annual radiation dose (Frigerio 1976).
3- In a large scale Chinese study, it was showed that the mortality rate due to cancer was lower in an area with a relatively high background radiation (74,000 people), while the control group (78,000 people) who lived in anarea with low background radiation had a higher rate of mortality (Wei L 1990).
4-In the U.S.A., it was indicated that significantly, the total cancer mortalityis inversely correlated with background radiation dose (Cohen BL. 1993).

2.3. Nuclear Power Plant studies

1-In a Canadian survey the mortality caused by cancer at nuclear power plants was 58% lower than the national average (Abbat et al. 1983).
2-In U.K also it was indicated that cancer frequency among nuclear powerplant workers was lower than the national average (Kendal et al. 1992).

The Mechanism of Hormetic Phenomena

Although still we do not know the entire mechanisms of radiation hormesis, the following theories may explain this process:

1-DNA repair (Mollecular level)
According to this theory, low doses of ionizing radiation induce the production of special proteins, that are involved in DNA repair processes (Ikushima 1996). Studies using two dimensional gel electrophoresis indicated new proteins in cells irradiated with low doses of radiation. Also, it was further shown that cycloheximide, a protein synthesis inhibitor blocks this hormetic effect. The function and importance of these radiation induced proteins is still unknown. Also it was foud that inhibitors of poly ADP-ribose polymerase, an enzyme implicated in DNA strand break rejoining could prevent the induction of adaptive response (for a review see Wolff 1998).

2-Free radical detoxification (Molecular level)
In 1987 Feinendengen and his co-workers indicated that low doses of ionizing radiation cause a temporary inhibition in DNA synthesis (the maximum inhibitionat 5 hours after irradiation). This temporary inhibition of DNA synthesis would provide a longer time for irradiated cells to recover (Feinendengen et al. 1987). This inhibition also may induce the production of free radical scavengers, so irradiated cells would be more resistant to any further exposures.

3-Stimulation of immune system (Cellular level)
Despite the fact that high doses of ionizing radiation are immunosupressive, many studies have indicated that low doses radiation may stimulate the function of the immune system. In 1909 Russ first showed that mice treated with low-level radiation were more resistant against bacterial disease (Russ VK 1909).Later in 1982 Luckey published a large collection of references supporting immunostimulatory effects of low doses of ionizing radiation (Luckey TD 1982).

BS Alert: More on the Radon Hoax

The National Cancer Institute is, of course, funded by the taxpayers. It’s current budget is almost 5 billion dollars, and its 2010 budget request is for an additional 2 billion, 100 million dollars. Dr. Lubin and his cohorts at NCI are very good at what they do: which is fundraising. Whether they are any good at finding a cure for cancer, is, on the other hand, a matter of some debate. President Nixon declared what came to be known as the “war on cancer” in 1971 in his State of the Union address. At first the war on cancer went poorly: despite a substantial increase in resources, age-adjusted cancer mortality increased by 8 percent between 1971 and 1990. After spending close to a trillion dollars, cancer mortality has started to decrease, but only slightly. Average five-year survival after cancer diagnosis has increased, over the past 50 years, from 50% to about 64%. Good news, but not great news.

Finally, reader “David” contends that “The scientific evidence on radon and lung cancer is as sure as it could ever be maybe you should acutally (sic.) read it! I am sure you also believe that smoking does not cause lung cancer and that global climate change is also a myth, your type usually does!” Well, we have read what the radon hoaxers claim is “scientific evidence,” and remain singularly unimpressed. And, yes, there are problems with the smoking/lung cancer research. Don’t get us started on global warming. “Our type” will tell you more about Al Gore’s little racket than you’d probably care to hear.

Not only do many studies of radon in homes contradict this assumption, some even suggest that lower lung cancer rates occur in geographic areas with relatively higher levels of radon. While the Russians and Europeans look to radon for healthful effects (sometime using therapeutic concentrations of 100,000+ pCi/l), our fear-inducing radon industry is making big bucks by scaring the bejesus out of people.

Much of the support for the radon hoax comes from a 1998 report from the National Research Council, a government-funded private organization, connected to the National Academy of Sciences. “Radon, particularly in combination with smoking, poses an important public health risk and it should be recognized as such,” said Dr. Jonathan Samet, a Johns Hopkins University professor and chairman of a NRC radon study committee. Another committee member, Dr. Eric Hall of Columbia University, opined: “A single Alpha particle is capable of producing quite profound damage.”   The committee noted that lung cancer can result from damage to a single cell.

There is now a substantial body of evidence which has been previously presented by T. D. Luckey (Radiation Hormesis. CRC PRESS, Boca Raton,FL. 1991), T. Sugahara, L. A. Sagan, and T. Aoyama (Low dose irradiation and biological defense mechanisms. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica: 1992.), and E. J. Calabrese (Biological effects of low level exposures to chemicals and radiation. CRC Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. 1994.), indicating that low level radiation actually stimulates our biological defense mechanisms to work on our behalf. An early hint of this phenomenon came with detailed studies of those living near World War II atomic bomb blasts. At points distant from the blasts where radiation was minimal but existent, leukemia deaths among A-bomb survivors was below normal, while as expected, closer to the blast where radiation was high, leukemia deaths rose well above normal.

Keep in mind the recent words of Dr. Charles Hennekens of the Harvard School of Public Health: “Epidemiology is a crude and inexact science. We tend to overstate findings either because we want attention or more grant money.”

Myths About Radiation

Myth: Radiation poisoning as an effect of the atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima caused many immediate deaths, and many more subsequent deaths from induced cancers.
Facts: Survivors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima have not died in droves from radiation-induced cancers, or for any other reason. There were, indeed, many immediate deaths, from the heat of the blast and from flying debris. There were also later induced cancers in those who were close to the epicenter of the blast. But, those who had low-level exposure to radiation are, in fact, living longer those who had no exposure.

Myth: Presence of radon in homes is correlative with cancer, especially lung cancer. Based on this premise, it has been believed that if you have high radon levels in your home, it is imperative that you take steps to remove it.
Fact: High radon levels in homes is predictive of LOWERED lung cancer (and all other cancer) rates. If you have high radon levels measured in your home, you should know that the odds of your being blessed with good health are significantly increased.

Myth: The accident at Chernobyl killed thousands of people and disabled millions.
Facts: Thirty workers and firefighters at the plant were killed. But a 16-year investigation by the UN and WHO concluded that there were no public radiation deaths or injuries. No significant increase in any illness resulted except for 2000 cases of childhood thyroid cancer, a highly treatable disease from which there have been few if any deaths. But fear of radiation led to unnecessary evacuation of large population groups, causing unemployment, depression, alcoholism and suicides. In the year after the accident, there were 100,000 additional abortions downwind of the accident because of unwarranted fear of bearing a “nuclear mutant.” Deformed “Chernobyl victims” used to raise money for relief were later found to be a scam—unrelated to the accident. Some were from sufficiently far away from Chernobyl that they could not have been affected; others were deformed long before the accident.

Myth: Cancer rates go up as altitude goes up because we are exposed to more cosmic radiation as our elevation increases.
Facts: Just the opposite is true. Live high, live longer: Those who live in areas with high background radiation live longer than those who live in low background radiation areas (high altitude Colorado is best; low altitude southeast U.S. is worse).

Myth: The quantity of nuclear waste is so great and its toxic effect so long-lasting that there is no safe method of disposal.
Facts: Nuclear plants produce less than a millionth of the volume of waste from an equivalent coal-fired plant. Waste can be put into sealed drums and controlled, rather than dumped into the environment. The 50,000 tons of radwaste destined for Yucca Mountain was produced by all 103 U.S. nuclear plants over the past 40 years. This is less than 2 pounds per person served for the whole 40 years. This is small compared to wastes produced by most other industries, or even our homes. The waste volumes associated with construction and operation of solar, wind, and other renewables are larger, on a per-kilowatt-hour basis, than nuclear wastes.

Myth: Radioactive waste stays toxic for thousands of years. Humanity has never faced such a long-term hazard.
Facts: Radioactive waste continually decreases in toxicity, whereas other toxic wastes like mercury, lead, arsenic, selenium, cadmium, chromium, etc. retain full toxicity forever. After 500 years, you could safely eat a pound of radioactive waste. Currently, we bury it 2000 feet underground. The top 2000 feet of U.S. soil contain millions of times more lethal doses of natural poisons than all the nuclear power waste together. We make 10,000 times more lethal doses of chlorine each year, and put it in our drinking water to kill germs.

Myth: Nuclear power is an especially unforgiving technology. A momentary slipup, and catastrophe ensues.
Facts: Just the opposite. Nuclear plants are uniquely robust. They can resist earthquakes, hurricanes, power loss, sabotage and operator errors. Even if the core were to melt, even with containment breached, analyses and tests show that few, if any persons would be seriously injured or killed. Hundreds of nuclear plants worldwide, operating for decades, have confirmed this.

Myth: Marie Curie died of radiation poisoning at a young age.
Fact: Dr. Curie was concentrating radioactive ores in a huge caldron that was so potent that she could literally read at night by the radioactive glow. (Think what she was inhaling.) During WW I, she worked on the wounded brought in freshly from the battlefield, holding the film with her bare hands as x-rays were taken. She got lots of radiation—it wasn’t even measured until detection instruments were invented, developed and deployed. Yet, she still out-lived the normal life-span for that period of time.

Provided by Jane Goldberg http://www.becausepeoplearedying.com/

Exposure To Low Levels Of Radon Appears To Reduce The Risk Of Lung Cancer, New Study Finds

ScienceDaily (Mar. 26, 2008) — Exposure to levels of radon gas typically found in 90 percent of American homes appears to reduce the risk of developing lung cancer by as much as 60 percent, according to a study published in the March issue of the journal Health Physics. The finding differs significantly from the results of previous case-control studies of the effects of low-level radon exposure, which have detected a slightly elevated lung cancer risk (but without statistical significance) or no risk at all.

The study, undertaken jointly by researchers at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI), Fallon Clinic, and Fallon Community Health Plan, is the first to observe a statistically significant hormetic effect of low-level radon exposure. Toxins and other environmental stressors (including radiation) that have a beneficial effect at very low doses are said to exhibit hormesis (scientists believe that the low doses of toxins may stimulate repair mechanisms in cells). Home exposure to radon, a naturally occurring radioactive decay product of radium, has been thought to be the second leading cause of lung cancer, after cigarette smoking. Chemically inert, it can percolate out of the ground into basements.

The study was initiated and managed by Donald F. Nelson, now professor emeritus of physics at WPI, during the 1990s, a time when concern over the link between residential radon exposure and lung cancer was growing. Nelson says the aim was to try to establish what level of radon exposure actually correlated with significant lung cancer risk and to establish a safety zone for home radon levels. “We were certainly not looking for a hormetic effect,” says co-author Joel H. Popkin of Fallon Clinic and St. Vincent Hospital in Worcester. “Indeed, we were stunned when the data pointed to that conclusion in such a strong way.”

In the study, the exposure of 200 individuals with confirmed cases of primary lung cancer to radon was compared to the exposure of 397 carefully matched, randomly selected control subjects. All subjects were 40 years old or older and had lived in their homes for at least 10 years. All of the cases and controls were residents of Worcester County in Massachusetts and were enrolled in the same health maintenance organization, Fallon Community Health Plan.

The results were statistically adjusted for factors known to be correlated with lung cancer risk, including smoking, occupational exposure to carcinogens, and level of education. The adjusted results show that the odds ratios of developing lung cancer fall below one (the no effect level) at radon exposure levels within the range measured in about 90 percent of homes across the United States (0-150 Becquerel per cubic meter of air, or about 0-4 picoCuries per liter). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends that homeowners take remediation actions when household radon exposure levels rise above 4 picoCuries per liter, based on the belief that radon exposure presents a linearly increasing lung cancer risk (a view not supported by the new study in the low-dose region).

In a statistical analysis led by Richard E. Thompson, associate scientist in the department of biostatistics at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, two mathematical techniques were used to compute the odds ratios of developing lung cancer. They each showed a statistically significant lowered lung cancer risk—a reduction of as much as 60 percent–over portions of the 0-150 Becquerel per cubic meter range.

The results of the current study do not fall within the “linear, no threshold” (LNT) model commonly used to analyze radon’s cancer risk (in fact, the current study calls into question the validity of that model). The model starts with cancer risks documented for exposure to high levels of radon (for example, by uranium miners) and extrapolates a considerable distance to risks at low levels (for example, for homeowners). In that model, the odds ratios of developing cancer rise linearly from one, beginning at a radon level of zero. The model has been used by the EPA to derive its estimate that 21,000 cancer deaths annually can be attributed to radon exposure, and also accounts for the common belief that there is no safe level of radon exposure.

Donald Nelson says the differences in the outcomes of this and previous studies may be attributable to key elements of the new study’s design. For example, he noted, care was taken to place radon monitors (for yearlong measurements) in areas of the home where the subjects spent the most wakeful time. Monitors were also place in the subjects’ present and former bedrooms and on any other home level where they spent as little as one hour per week.

The subjects’ exposures were then obtained by weighting the measurements according to the time typically spent near each detector. The results were further adjusted to account for how subjects’ home use changed with changing lifestyle (for example, transitioning from full-time employment to retirement). “Our analysis shows this to be an important improvement over exposure measures used by almost all other studies,” he said.

“It is important to note,” Nelson added, “that these new results do not dispute the lung cancer risk associated with higher levels of radon exposure experienced by uranium miners. Nevertheless, the results represent a dramatic departure from previous results and beliefs. Of course, a single epidemiological study is seldom regarded as definitive, so our results point to the need for new studies using our techniques.”

Nelson also noted that the study revealed a dramatic correlation between level of education and lung cancer risk. Subjects who had at least some college education were found to have only 30 percent of the lung cancer risk of those with less than a high school education. “While education has been found to be an important correlated variable in many health studies,” he said, “this is a particularly striking and statistically significant result, one found after smoking, job exposures, and radon were statistically adjusted for.”

New Radon Therapy Center!

Night Hawk Minerals has been working for 20+ years to improve the quality of life for people with several illnesses, specializing in Cancer. It has always been a dream of Jay Gutierrez (founder of Night Hawk Minerals) to have a place where people who are looking for wellness to be at home. That home is in Pritchett, Colorado

Why should you choose the Radon Therapy Center?

• Everything we do is proven to accelerate your healing.
• We have methods to help you battle Cancer, Lyme Disease, MS, Aspergilus, Candida, Etc. We also help with the process of Detoxification of the body and Preventative Health.
• We are one of a kind, the only facility like this in the United States.
• We are the only facility in the world that works with Natural Radition Hormesis, using stones Mined in the Western US. With the goal of extending our reach to the worl

http://www.radontherapycenter.com/

I Use Radalert100 Geiger Counter

This counter is nice and is made in the USA, is pretty sensitive and comes calibrated, I did pay about $480 for it and it is one of the best ones out there. Here are key features -

The Radalert 100 is a general purpose geiger counter that measures alpha, beta, gamma, and x-radiation. Exciting new features of the Radalert 100 — as an upgraded version of the popular Radalert 50 — include a three-second update and a utility menu that allows you to change the default settings for several operating parameters. Its digital liquid crystal display (LCD) shows the current radiation level in your choice of milliroentgens per hour from .001 to 110 or counts per minute (cpm) from 0 to 350,000. When SI units are selected, the LCD shows readings in microsieverts per hour from .01 to 1100 or counts per second (cps) from 0 to 3,500. This instrument also offers an accumulated total and timer function, up to 9,999,000 counts and 40 hours. A red LED blinks and a beeper chirps with each count (the chirp can be muted). An audible alert sounds when the radiation reaches a user-adjustable level. The Radalert 100 meets CE certification requirements for Europe.

Specifications:

Sensor:
• Halogen-quenched Geiger-Meuller detector (LND712)
• Mica end window density is 1.5-2.0 mg/cm²
• Side wall is 0.012″ #446 stainless steel
• Detects Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and X-radiation

Display: 4-digit liquid crystal display with mode indicators

Calibration: Cesium 137 (gamma)

Sensitivity: 1000 cpm/mR/hr referenced to Cs-137

Accuracy: ±10% typical; ±15% max. (mR/hr & mSv/hr modes)

Alert: User-adjustable alert level to 50 mR/hr & 160,000 CPM

Count light: Red LED flashes with each count

Audio: Beeper chirps for each count (can be muted)

Ports:
• Output: Stereo 3.5 mm jack sends counts to computers, data loggers, other CMOS-compatible devices, and headphones
• Input: Mono 2.5 mm jack provides electronic calibration input

Power: One 9-volt alkaline battery; average battery life is 2160 hours at normal background, 625 hours at 1 mR/hr with beeper off

Size: 150 x 80 x 30 mm (5.9″ x 3.2″ x 1.2″)

Weight: 225 grams (8 oz) including battery

Options: Computer cable and software (IBM PC compatible)

CE Certified

http://www.medcom.com/rad100.htm

Famous Studies on Low Level Radiation Exposure

• Dr. Sohei Kondo, in his 1993 book, Health Effects of Low-Level Radiation, documented that survivors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima who received some radioactive exposure live longer and healthier than those who had no exposure to the post-bomb radiation.

• Research on the health effects of plutonium inhaled and ingested by the Manhattan Project workers at Los Alamos was started in 1952 to determine the delayed effects. Workers at Rocky Flats and the Mound Laboratory were also studied. Although plutonium has been called “the most toxic substance known to man,” the exposed group has remained in surprisingly good health ever since. Dire predictions of catastrophic increases of lung cancers have not occurred. In fact, mortality has been significantly lower than the non-plutonium workers.

• A Japanese study reported on a twenty-five year follow up study of Japanese fishermen who were heavily contaminated by plutonium from the hydrogen bomb test at Bikini. No one died from cancer.

• Double-blind studies performed on patients at Japan’s Misasa Radon Springs have confirmed the ability of its radioactive water to relieve rheumatism, neuralgia and other complaints. Similar results were obtained in studies conducted in conjunction with Radon Therapy Hospital specialists at Austria’s Bad Gastein spa.

• In a large scale Chinese study, it was shown that the mortality rate due to cancer was lower in an area with a relatively high background radiation (74,000 people), while the control group (78,000 people) who lived in an area with low background radiation had a higher rate of mortality.

• In an area in Japan with a high average indoor radon level, the lung cancer incidence was about 50 percent less than the incidence in a low-level radon region. Researchers Mifune and Mifune also showed that in this high background radiation area, the mortality rate caused by all types of cancer was 37 percent lower.

• In the U.S., Bernard Cohen’s epidemiological large scale study looked at 90% of the counties in the country. Results over a five year research period indicated that the total cancer mortality is inversely correlated with background radiation dose. More radon; less cancer.

• In another large scale study by Frigerio in the U.S., it was found that the mortality rate due to all malignancies was lower in states with higher annual radiation dose.

• Rates of leukemia and lymphocytic lymphoma were studied in relation to altitude. Higher altitudes have higher radiation. The finding, however, was the higher the altitude, the lower the incidence of leukemia.

• In China, as reported by Blot, a study compared background radiation levels from homes of women suffering from lung cancer. Those who lived in high-level radon homes had an 80 percent lower lung cancer risk than those living in a low-radon home.

• Auxier shows that in Kerala, India, there is 400-800 percent more background radiation than neighboring areas, yet the people there have the highest fertility rate with the lowest neonatal deaths of any other Indian state.

• In Germany, women living near uranium mining areas of Saxony, Germany, with high radon levels, have significantly lower lung cancer rates than a control group from East Germany where the radon levels are lower.

• In England, the towns of Cornwall and Devon have high background radon levels, yet have a cancer incidence well below the national average.

• 1,700 Taiwan apartments were constructed with steel girders accidentally contaminated with cobalt 60, one of the more dreaded radioactive substances. Over a period of sixteen years, 10,000 occupants were exposed to levels of radiation that should have, according to traditional theories of the damaging effect of all radiation, induced cancers many times in excess of background expectations. Taiwan health statistics predicted 170 cancers among an age-matched population of this size. But only five were observed. Describing this “incredible radiological incident,” Y. C. Luan suggested that this might point to “effective immunity from cancer” from the very source thought most likely to give rise to it.

Provided by Jane Goldberg http://www.becausepeoplearedying.com/

Understanding Radiation

Ionizing Radiation

Ionizing radiation is radiation that changes the structure of individual atoms by ionizing them. The ions produced in turn ionize more atoms. Substances that produce ionizing radiation are called radioactive.

Radioactivity is a natural phenomenon. Nuclear reactions take place continuously on the sun and all other stars. The emitted radiation travels through space, and a small fraction reaches the earth. Natural sources of ionizing radiation also exist in the ground. The most common of these are uranium and its decay products.

Ionizing radiation is categorized into four types:

X-rays are usually man made radiation produced by bombarding a metallic target with electrons at a high speed in a vacuum. Xrays are electromagnetic radiation of the same nature as light waves and radio waves, but at extremely short wavelength, less than 0.1 billionth of a centimeter. They are also called photons. The energy of x-rays is millions of times greater than that of light and radio waves. Because of this high energy level, x-rays penetrate a variety of materials, including body tissue.

Gamma rays occur in nature and are almost identical to x-rays, but generally have a shorter wavelength than x-rays. Gamma rays are very penetrating.

Beta radiation. A beta particle consists of an electron emitted from an atom. Beta particles penetrate matter less deeply than gamma or x-rays, but they are biologically significant because they can be more effective than gamma radiation at disrupting cellular material.

Alpha radiation. An alpha particle consists of two protons and two neutrons, the same as the nucleus of a helium atom. It generally can travel no more than 1 to 3 inches in air before stopping, and can be stopped by a piece of paper.

When an atom emits an alpha or beta particle or a gamma ray, it becomes a different type of atom. Radioactive substances may go through several stages of decay before they change into a stable, or non-radioactive form.

An element may have several forms, or isotopes. A radioactive form of an element is called a radioisotope or radionuclide. Each radionuclide has a half-life, which is the time required for half of a quantity of the material to decay.

The following chart shows the complete decay chain for uranium 238, which ends with a stable isotope of lead. Notice that the half- life of the radionuclides in the chain range from 164 microseconds to 4.5 billion years.