Low Level Ionizing Radiation Therapy Central
RSS icon Email icon Home icon
  • Chronic Radiation Is Beneficial to Human Beings

    Posted on September 27th, 2009 Vadim 257 comments Link to post

    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.


  • BS Alert: More on the Radon Hoax

    Posted on June 12th, 2009 Vadim 77 comments Link to post
    Our article on Lies from Louisville’s Metro Health Department seems to have sparked an unusual amount of reader resistance; particularly on the issue of what we have termed “the radon hoax.” Reader “Dr. Field” says that we are “very ill informed,” and “presenting more disinformation.” He reminds us that his source for the “21,000” yearly radon-caused deaths is a “Dr. Lubin, … a scientist employed by the National Cancer Institute so he does not have to seek funding for research.” We pointed out that Lubin is neither a toxicologist nor a pathologist (he’s not even a medical doctor), and that he has a Ph.D. in something called “biostatistics.” We suggested that Dr. Lubin is a “self-styled epidemiologist, hustling for federal grant money to justify his attempts at scaring the crap out of homeowners by claiming they have deadly gas in their basements.”

    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.

    Reader Gloria Linnertz suggests we go to www.cansar.org, “to see the faces and read the stories of some of the individuals that discovered they were living with high levels of radon only after being diagnosed with lung cancer.”   She urges readers to test their homes for radon: “It’s very easy and if the level is 3 or higher, it is not difficult to fix.” Of course the sad anecdotal stories of cancer survivors on the web site are guaranteed to elicit a strong emotional response, but are a poor substitute for cold, hard, scientific fact. Deep in the cansar.org web site, it becomes clear that the bogus uranium miner studies are the source of the organization’s claim that exposure to the EPA’s 4 pCi/L “Action Level” creates a risk of lung cancer. The site claims that it is “…reasonable to extrapolate from the miner data to a residential situation…” And with that phrase, they give away the game. We’re not talking medical science here; we’re into the wonderland of statistical analysis and fraudulent epidemiology.

    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.

    Now, to the “scientific evidence” undergirding the radon scare. Unbeknownst to the public, studies often depend upon unproven — and often undisclosed assumptions. For example, the National Cancer Institute recently concluded that radon gas in homes causes 12,000 lung cancer deaths annually. True, some studies show that high levels of radon gas in underground uranium mines increased cancer rates among miners. But, the typical home isn’t an underground uranium mine, is it? NCI assumed that because high levels of radon increased cancer rates among miners, then any radon exposure increases cancer risk. This assumption, never scientifically validated, is then extrapolated into a mathematical model that calculates the 12,000 figure.

    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.

    Reader Linnertz suggests that “It’s very easy and if the level is 3 or higher, it is not difficult to fix.” Local inspection services will charge you upwards of 200 bucks for a 48-hour measurement of the radon in your basement. Do you think they’ll find radon (the heaviest gas known)? Well, if you live over limestone strata (like in most of Metro Louisville), there is a constant level of background radiation; usually misinterpreted to indicate the presence of radon. You’ll be told “the EPA says that anything above 4 [pCi/l] is unacceptable.” Oh yeah, and the remediation costs start at about 2000 dollars.

    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.

    Based on mathematical models, the committee estimated that radon exposure played a role in 15,400 to 21,800 of the 157,400 lung cancer deaths reported in the United States in 1995. This would mean that radon exposure is second only to cigarette smoking in causing lung cancer. If radon levels in all American homes were reduced below the EPA-recommended levels, the NRC committee concluded, the number of radon-related lung cancer deaths among nonsmokers would be reduced by about 1,000.
    According to Jay Lehr, Ph.D., senior scientist with Environmental Education Enterprises, the cancer risk from low-level radiation is normally estimated by use of a linear no-threshold theory, which is a logical consequence of the view that a single particle of radiation hitting a single biological cell can initiate a cancer. The number of these initiating events would then be proportional to the number of particles of radiation and hence the dose. This theory however ignores the obvious biological defense mechanisms that prevent numerous initiating events from developing into cancers each day of our lives.

    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.

    Dr. Lehr suggests that the most persuasive evidence of this reverse phenomenon now appears in the report of the nation’s most comprehensive radon study, which appears in the February 1995 issue of Health Physics (Vol.68, No. 2) presented by Bernard L. Cohen of the University of Pittsburgh. Cohen used radon data from 1601 counties covering more than 80% of the US population. Data was derived either directly from measurements by a University of Pittsburgh research team or by USEPA or from data bases compiled by individual states. The data clearly show that there is a strong tendency for lung cancer rates to decrease with increasing radon exposure. The actual radiation/cancer relationship indicating a decline in cancer with an increase in low level radon radiation is in sharp contrast to the reverse relationship which coincides with the prevailing no threshold theory. (See: Cohen, B.L. Test of the linear-no threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis for inhaled radon decay products. Health Phys 1995;68:157-174.)
    There exists a plethora of articles and advertising focusing on radon gas, radon testing and abatement, primarily from individuals and companies offering testing services or selling radon testing equipment. The Canadian and some European governments have set the “safe” indoor threshold at a level 5 times higher than the United States. This could explain why there is a lesser emphasis on testing and abatement in Canada, than in the United States.
    As for the “attack of the number-crunchers” upon us smokers, statistical studies have reported that populations of heavy smokers have gotten lung cancer at a rate 20 times greater than nonsmokers. As a result of such studies, researchers have concluded that smoking “causes” lung cancer. But is the cause-and-effect relationship that simple? Based on American Cancer Society statistics, one of every 10,000 nonsmokers gets lung cancer. If the rate of lung cancer among heavy smokers is 20 times greater, then out of every 10,000 heavy smokers, 20 will get lung cancer. This means that less than 1 percent of heavy smokers (20 out of 10,000) get lung cancer. Bet you never read that statistic in the Courier-Journal!

    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.”

    Maybe you hated math when you were in school. You probably learned the process of extrapolation with exercises such as: “2, 4, 8, 16, what comes next?” If you guessed “32,” you would be correct. That’s the way mathematical progressions work. But the real world of disease etiology doesn’t quite conform to that sort of mathematical prediction. And, when “scientists,” using “extrapolation,” claim that “invisible substances” in your basement are going to kill you, hold on to your wallet. They’re just after your money.

  • Myths About Radiation

    Posted on June 11th, 2009 Vadim 196 comments Link to post

    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

    Posted on June 4th, 2009 Vadim 100 comments Link to post

    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.”


  • I Use Radalert100 Geiger Counter

    Posted on June 3rd, 2009 Vadim 219 comments Link to post

    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

    Operating range: mR/hr: .001-110 CPM: 0-350,000
    µSv/hr: .01-1,100 CPS: 0-3,500
    Total: 0-9,999,000 counts Timer: up to 40 hours

    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


  • Radiation Explained Alpha Beta Gamma From 1960s

    Posted on June 2nd, 2009 Vadim 2 comments Link to post


  • New Feature - Radiation Dose Culculator

    Posted on May 29th, 2009 Vadim 1 comment Link to post

    To understand background radiation and find out what is your natural background radiation levels are for any given year please check out our new radiation dose calculator -

    radculc


  • A Predecessor to the MudPack

    Posted on May 27th, 2009 Vadim 4 comments Link to post

    Found this cool looking Radium Ore Healing Pad on line. I wonder how many of them left out there from almost 100 years ago. It was also recommended to heat the pad.


  • “Vitamin R” - Radiation Good For Your Health!

    Posted on May 24th, 2009 Vadim 2 comments Link to post

    In 1980, Professor T.D. Luckey, a biochemist at the University of Missouri, published a study, entitled Hormesis With Ionizing Radiation (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL; also in Japanese, Soft Science Inc., Tokyo), of over 1200 experiments dating back to the turn of the century reporting the effects of low-level radiation on biota ranging from viruses and bacteria through various plants and animals up to vertebrates. He found that, by all the criteria normally used to judge the well-being of living things, modest increases of radiation above the natural background make life better: they grow bigger and faster; they live longer; they get sick less often and recover sooner; they produce more offspring, more of which survive. The phenomenon of “hormesis”–whereby things that become harmful at high concentration are actually beneficial in small doses–is established in chemical toxicology. The effect is believed to result from stimulation and exercising of the natural immune system. What Luckey showed was that it applies also to radiation.

    vitaminr

    Some further facts that are consistent with this conclusion:

    * Iowa, the state that the EPA found as having the highest average level of radon in the home, also has below-average cancer incidence. The mountain states, with double the radiation background of the US as a whole, show a cancer rate way below Iowa’s. Data from a study of 1729 U.S. counties shows the correlation between radon and lung cancer mortality to be about the same as for cigarette smoking; except that it’s negative: the more radiation, the less cancer.

    * The same extends worldwide. The waters of such European spas as Lourdes, Bath, and Bad Gastein, known for their beneficial health effects since Roman times, all have high radioactivity levels. Areas noted for high radiation backgrounds, such as the Caucasus, southwest England, northwest India, have high longevity and low cancer incidence.

    * British data on over 10,000 UK Atomic Energy Authority workers show cancer mortality to be 22% below the national average. For Canada the figure is 33%. (Imagine the hysteria if those numbers were the other way around!)

    It appears, however, that the political consequences of announcing this to a public that has been saturated with contrary propaganda for over 20 years would be unacceptable. Although papers and conferences on radiation hormesis are now regular features of the scientific scene, they are ignored by the lawmakers and regulatory authorities. The continuing assumption of proportionate damage by tiny doses contradicts everything that has been discovered about cell metabolism and the mechanism of DNA repair since the early sixties.

    If a little extra radiation is good for you, what optimum dose should our local health-food store recommend? Work reported from Japan puts it roughly at two “millirems,” per day. That’s about a tenth of a dental X-ray, or one coast-to-coast jet flight, or a year’s worth of standing beside a nuclear plant. For comparison, the level where the net effect becomes harmful is around two rems per day; 50 (note, we’re talking rems now, not millirems) causes chronic radiation sickness; 100 is lethal.

    Perhaps tablets for those who don’t get enough regular exposure wouldn’t be a bad idea. A good way to use radioactive waste might be to bury it under radon-deficient homes. And perhaps cereal manufacturers should be required to state on their boxes the percentage of the daily dietary requirement that a portion of their product contributes. After all, if radiation is essential for health in minimum, regular amounts, it meets the accepted definition of a vitamin!

    As a further note to put things in perspective, her are some figures comparing radiation exposures experienced by the average American from various sources, natural and man-made.

    Annual estimated doses in mREMs per year:

    radiation_sources

    All rocks contain traces of uranium. Radiation from the granite used in Grand Central Station exceeds the NRC limits for nuclear-plant operation. Grand Central Station wouldn’t get a license as a nuclear plant. Neither would the piers of the harbor at Dun Laoghaire, near where I live in Ireland.


  • The Apple Experiment

    Posted on May 24th, 2009 Vadim 24 comments Link to post

    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.

    smallsmalldate