PDA

View Full Version : Radiation - apparently it's not that bad


Y.T.
01-12-2007, 05:33 PM
It seems to me that the dangers of radiation (and coincidentally.. dirty bombs) has been greatly exaggerated.. In Iran, there is a city called Ramsar, whose inhabitants get 10+ times the EPA allowed dose to radiation workers, yet don't have a higher cancer risk.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=11769138&dopt=Abstract

Might even be beneficial ...


In Taiwan (in the early 1980s), 180 apartment buildings were built with recycled steel that was accidentally contaminated with Colbalt-60. The buildings’ occupants, 4,000 people, lived in them for more than 10 years before their radioactive state was discovered. The amount of radiation they received ranged up to more than 1,500 mrem per year. (Colbalt-60 has a half-life of 5.3 years.) The cancer mortality, over a 20-year period, in the radiated occupants was 97 percent less (3.5 deaths per 100,000 person years) than that of the general population of Taiwan (116 deaths per 100,000 person years). Even the incidence of congenital heart malformations in the children they bore was reduced. This carefully done study shows, as its authors put it, that "chronic radiation [far above EPA limits] is an effective prophylaxis against cancer."

TFA
(A long article .. on radiation hormesis)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller12.html

Another article, by a polish radiation scientist.


Linear no-threshold theory is contradicted by the phenomenon of hormesis, that is, the stimulating and protective effects of small radiation doses. The first report on hormetic effects in algae appeared 100 years ago (Atkinson, 1898). One of the most recent hormetic effects can be seen in the lower-than-normal incidence of leukemia (Figure 2) and the greater longevity among atomic bomb survivors (Kondo, 1993).

http://www.radscihealth.org/RSH/Docs/Jaworowski/Zbigniew_Jaworowski_Warsaw_1998.htm

Original article on the Taiwan cobalt-60 incident http://www.jpands.org/vol9no1/chen.pdf

Maybe when this all gets generally known... people are going to petition the government to have nuclear power plants nearby (in my country.. they bribe them with lower taxes and state benefits), or spent fuel dumps.

Cherub Rock
01-12-2007, 06:06 PM
4000 people eh? Okay so it is a ridiculously large differential, I will admit that. There could be numerous factors involved though. For instance, we're talking about cancer mortality, not instances where cancer developed. Since the sample size is limited to people who live in apartments we can assume that they also can afford treatment, whereas "the general population of Taiwan" likely includes a large number of people without any form of healthcare.

delen
01-12-2007, 06:35 PM
I'll take no radiation, K THX.

Minibeefcake
01-12-2007, 06:42 PM
4000 people eh? Okay so it is a ridiculously large differential, I will admit that. There could be numerous factors involved though. For instance, we're talking about cancer mortality, not instances where cancer developed. Since the sample size is limited to people who live in apartments we can assume that they also can afford treatment, whereas "the general population of Taiwan" likely includes a large number of people without any form of healthcare.


just a note... I believe Taiwan has universal healthcare for all citizen. So in theory, they all received the same level of care. In theory anyways...

Y.T.
01-12-2007, 07:02 PM
... Apartments ? Afaik.. Taiwan has little in the way of slums, so it's fair to think those weren't some of the wealthiest, but rather people with average incomes.

Besides.. no matter how much money you have.. you can't cure most cancers.

RandomPasserby
01-12-2007, 07:52 PM
Well, according to the story, you can adapt to long term exposure (or so the radiated iranians did), but short term radiation exposure is still dangerous.

Btw. Zakalwe, you didn't know radiation was used to combat cancer?

Y.T.
01-12-2007, 09:22 PM
What makes you think that ?
I doubt that your mom talks about gamma knives over breakfast though ..
.. the point of radiation therapy is, that its intensely harmful to the cells concerned
(cancer, by rotating the beam they concentrate the damage into one area .. )..

Soli
01-12-2007, 09:28 PM
I'll take no radiation, K THX.

Me too! Better safe then sorry. :)

That story is interesting though.

Y.T.
01-12-2007, 09:36 PM
But ... according to that research... we should introduce some radiation sources.. and that would drive the risk of cancer down.

Compulsory irradiation ... imagine what the anti-government nuts who refuse to have their kids inoculated think then ..

ROFL..

Trump
01-12-2007, 10:30 PM
Well, keep in mind the EPA sets those standards far below what is considered dangerous levels (probably by 10X). So while it may be above EPA standards for "safe", it may not be dangerous. I know they do this with Laser classifications. Class I lasers are the "safe" lasers. The definition of "safe" is that you can stare into it for 10 seconds, without moving your eye (keeping the beam on the same spot of your retina) and still not be damaged. Then on top of that, they derate it by 10x, so you'd have to stare at it for 100 seconds before you had a chance of getting hurt. It is probably similar for the EPA standards on radiation. They don't want to take any chances at all.