51–60 of 80 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not clear on what the second paragraph is adding to your example in the first.
It's a related and important historical fact that is not well known outside of Czechia. Why not share it with wider audience when given a chance.
3 Gy is nowhere near what could be qualified as a "Low dose". "A whole-body acute exposure to 5 grays or more of high-energy radiation usually leads to death within 14 days. LD1 is 2.5 Gy, LD50 is 5 Gy and LD99 is 8 Gy.[11] The LD50 dose represents 375 joules for a 75 kg adult. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_(unit)#Radiation_poisonin...
Gray (Gy) - measures energy deposited per kilogram of tissue. Think of it like measuring how many bullets hit a target, not how much damage they do. Sievert (Sv) - measures biological damage. This accounts for the fact that different types of radiation and different tissues react differently. Think of this as the actual damage done. The bullet's energy is identical in all cases (same Gy), but the biological damage va…
For centuries, in Bulgaria, since Roman times, people have been bathing in slightly radioactive water to treat osteoarthritis. I'm not sure how this is news or an invention when it's been around for centuries and has been the standard of care in Bulgaria for decades. There are sanatoriums and spa centers in Pavel Banya, Bulgaria [0], and I know many friends who go there once or twice a year for treatments and swear t…
This might be one of those cures that works like the old T-Gel shampoo (ie: carcinogenic coal tar that turned out to be immune-suppressing enough to prevent dandruff eventually caused cancer). Though, at the ages when Osteoarthritis shows up, it might be better to take on a smaller risk of monitor-able extremity cancer than the pretty large QoL reduction of severe arthritis.
There is a theory (theory! very theoretical) that the risk from radiation does not scale linearly and that low doses of radiation might actually be protective. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
This might be one of those cures that works like the old T-Gel shampoo (ie: carcinogenic coal tar that turned out to be immune-suppressing enough to prevent dandruff eventually caused cancer). Though, at the ages when Osteoarthritis shows up, it might be better to take on a smaller risk of monitor-able extremity cancer than the pretty large QoL reduction of severe arthritis.
There is a theory (theory! very theoretical) that the risk from radiation does not scale linearly and that low doses of radiation might actually be protective. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
Compare with the CTE, where a few bone-crushing traumas do not seem to cause it, but chronic long-term low grade impacts is more likely to cause it.
Another example, I probably could eat a massive amount of processed meat a few times without much ill effect, but years of eating moderate amounts might do you in.
Glad to see this! We need better treatments for OA short of a joint replacement. I'm not too surprised that this treatment works. It's essentially like localized steroids to just the joint- killing off the immune cells causing inflammation. Good features is that it's localized (so no systemic immunosuppression) and the risk of cancer is low since you rarely get radiation-induced cancer in joints because there's not e…
Are you confusing osteoarthritis with rheumatoid arthritis? I didn't think the pain of osteoarthritis had anything to do with the immune response. You've literally got bone rubbing against bone. It's not going to feel good.
Tom Scott made a video about a related treatment - radon caves a couple years ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZkusjDFlS0
Tom says that because that's the only radon cave that can turn the flow of radon on and off at will, it's the only place where you could (in theory) run a double-blind experiment on radon exposure therapy.
My question is: would it not be just as possible to do that in a laboratory setting? Surely there are already lab facilities in the world that are set up for double blind "exposure" experiments of that sort, with easy control of dosages, flow rates, etc. Is the problem that radon gas too expensive to harvest or store safely? Why is that cave the only feasible option?
EDIT: It now occurs to me that the answer could be "because the half life of radon is to short to transport it, so you would basically have to generate it in the lab by getting an enormous amount of uranium in one place and letting it decay and find some way of filtering the byproducts to isolate the radon in a way that putting it under a huge layer of bedrock does naturally." Sounds plausible to me, but does anyone know if that's the case?
This should be a reminder that we have no evidence that the Linear no threshold model of radiation exposure is accurate. In fact, we have compelling evidence against it. But due to rather aggressive lobbying effort by anti-nuclear activists, we are stuck with this idea for the time being. It's simply the default that was decided on as the most conservative option possible, but that's pretty much it. Radioactive baths…
For centuries, in Bulgaria, since Roman times, people have been bathing in slightly radioactive water to treat osteoarthritis. I'm not sure how this is news or an invention when it's been around for centuries and has been the standard of care in Bulgaria for decades. There are sanatoriums and spa centers in Pavel Banya, Bulgaria [0], and I know many friends who go there once or twice a year for treatments and swear t…
An example here: https://www.radonmine.com/facility/
There's quite a few out that way.
This should be a reminder that we have no evidence that the Linear no threshold model of radiation exposure is accurate. In fact, we have compelling evidence against it. But due to rather aggressive lobbying effort by anti-nuclear activists, we are stuck with this idea for the time being. It's simply the default that was decided on as the most conservative option possible, but that's pretty much it. Radioactive baths…
Some anti-nuclear activists are against LNT because they think it understates the effect of low dose radiation. The conservative approach would be to assume low dose radiation has the maximum effect not ruled out by evidence. This would be higher than predicted by LNT.