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).

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.”

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.

The Apple Experiment

Last night I bought two identical apples and glass jars, I took some photos and placed apples in the jars and sealed them shut. In one of the jars I placed a Gray Stone right on top of the apple. I am planning on abserving not treated apple to decay within a few months and the jar with the rock in it to stay semi fresh for at least a year, will see what happens I will keepyou updated on the progress.

LLR (low level radiation) kills yeast/fungus/candida/mold, so while these things can ferment and rot the apple the stone should prevent that from happening.

Here is what T. D. Luckey Has to Say About LLR

Evidence of health benefits and longer average life-span following low-dose irradiation should replace fear, “all radiation is harmful,” and “the perception of harm” as the basis for action in the 21st century. Hormesis is the excitation, or stimulation, by small doses of any agent in any system. Large doses inhibit. “Low dose” is defined as any dose between ambient levels of radiation and the threshold that marks the boundary between biopositive and bionegative effects. That threshold negates the “linear no
threshold” (LNT) paradigm. This overview summarizes almost 3,000 reports on stimulation by low-dose irradiation.

“Hormesis with Ionizing Radiation” presented evidence of increased vigor in plants, bacteria, invertebrates and vertebrates. Most physiologic reactions in living cells are stimulated by low doses of ionizing radiation. This evidence of radiogenic metabolism (metabolism promoted by ionizing radiation) includes enzyme induction, photosynthesis, respiration and growth. Radiation hormesis in immunity decreases infection and premature death in radiation exposed populations. Increased immune competence is a major factor in the increased average life-span of populations exposed to low-dose irradiation. “Radiation Hormesis” presented evidence for radiation hormesis in major physiologic functions of vertebrates. Evidence of radiation hormesis in reproduction emphasizes the safety of low-dose irradiation. “Low-Level Radiation Health Effects: Compiling the Data” summarizes recent papers on radiation hormesis.

During the previous decades, statistically significant evidence showed that whole body exposures of humans to low doses of ionizing radiation decreased total cancer mortality rates. This is based on information compiled from 7 million person-years of exposed and control workers in nuclear shipyard and atomic bomb plants in Canada, Great Britain and the United States. Other human experiences with unusual exposures confirm radiation hormesis in cancer mortality. A variety of external sources are
beneficial. Internal sources (plutonium, radium and radon) are also effective.

The conclusions have both personal and national significance. Ionizing radiation is a benign environmental agent at background levels. We live with a subclinical deficiency of ionizing radiation. Low doses of ionizing radiation significantly decrease premature cancer death. Health benefits should replace risk and death as the guide for safe exposures to ionizing radiation. Safe supplementation with ionizing radiation would provide a new plateau of health.

Radioactive Beach Led to Origins of Life on Earth

A leading astrobiologist has added another hypothesis to the existing long and varied list of the theories for the origins of life, by claiming that the basic building blocks of life on Earth began on a radioactive beach.

According to Zachary Adam, an astrobiologist at the University of Washington in Seattle, life on our planet first evolved through the collection of radioactive material on a beach.

He suggests that the more powerful tides generated by the moon’s closer orbit billions of years ago compared to today could have separated radioactive material from other sediment.

With the help of computer models, Adam points out that sufficient amounts of radioactive deposits accumulated at a beach’s high tide mark triggered the self-sustaining fission reactions.

Demonstrating his theory in lab experiments, Adam showed that such a deposit could generate the chemical energy which is required to produce some of the molecules in water that create amino acids and sugars, the key building blocks of life, when irradiated.

Adam added that a deposit of a radioactive material called monazite would also discharge soluble phosphate, another important ingredient for life, into the gaps between sand grains, thus making it available to react in water.

“Amino acids, sugars and [soluble] phosphate can all be produced simultaneously in a radioactive beach environment,” New Scientist quoted him, as saying.

Other hypothesis explaining the evolution of life on Earth includes English geneticist J. B. S. Haldane and Russian biochemist Alexander Oparin’s “primordial soup” theory.

The theory, devised in 1920’s, proposed that life on Earth emerged from a “primordial soup” of simple organic chemicals accumulated on the surface of bodies of water within the hydrogen-rich early atmosphere.

Others include early life forming in inorganic clay, the initial energy coming not from chemical reactions but from sunlight or lightening and the influx of microscopic seeds of terrestrial life on chunks of meteorites or comets, and the intervention of a divine, intelligent designer.

Forms of Radiation

Radiation takes many forms, including both electromagnetic waves and sub-nuclear particles. The electromagnetic spectrum consists of light waves ranging in length from very short (10−16 meters, or 3.937 × 10−15 inches) to very long (108 meters, or 621,400 miles). The product of the velocity of electromagnetic waves and their wavelength is a constant equal to the velocity of light, 3 × 108 meters per second (m/s); therefore, as the length of waves increases, the frequency decreases. Thus, if the waves were 1 meter(3.3 feet) long, the frequency would be 3 × 108 hertz (Hz) or 300,000,000/s (meaning 300,000,000 light waves would pass by each second). The electromagnetic spectrum consists of light waves ranging in length from very short γ (gamma) rays through x rays, ultraviolet (UV) rays, the spectrum of visible light, infrared (IR) rays, and microwaves, to very long radio and television waves.

The shortest electromagnetic waves are classified as γ rays. One of the forms of energy emanating from natural sources of radioactivity here on Earth and also from energy sources in space, γ rays can be thought of as very short x rays. Discovered by the German physicist Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen in 1895, the remarkable penetrating effect of rays and x rays results from their very short wavelength (from about 10−12 to 10−8 meters, or 3.28 × 10−11 to 3.28 × 10−7 feet). The waves are so small that they can pass through many substances with little interaction. X rays pass through skin and organs with little effect but are diffracted somewhat when they pass through denser materials such as bone; the resulting pattern enables technicians to make xray images of bones and of the contents of packages in airport scanners.

The energy of electromagnetic radiation is directly proportional to the frequency. Since both x rays and γ rays have very high frequencies, they carry large amounts of energy, and high intensities of x rays and γ rays can damage many materials (including living tissue). The rays may be focused by special lenses and used to kill cancer cells or organisms that might cause disease or hasten spoilage in food.