Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
1–10 of 57 posts
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#2tl;dr No.
> Darmstadt biologist Fournier believes the question is misguided. "Something that strengthens the cells doesn't necessarily help a person," she says. "If it mutates, this cell can later be the source of cancer."
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#3See my answer here: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/2490/1792
tl;dr: "There is empirical evidence that suggests that low to medium amounts of absorbed gamma radiation boosts immunity and resilience to ailments such as heart disease, though it may (or may not) increase rates of cancer. It has been suggested and that the reduction in the probability of death from other diseases offsets the increased probability of death from cancer."
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#4See my answer here: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/2490/1792 tl;dr: "There is empirical evidence that suggests that low to medium amounts of absorbed gamma radiation boosts immunity and resilience to ailments such as heart disease, though it may (or may not) increase rates of cancer. It has been suggested and that the reduction in the probability of death from other diseases offsets the increased probability of…
Interesting link. Radiation hormesis seems to be a real thing.
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#5See my answer here: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/2490/1792 tl;dr: "There is empirical evidence that suggests that low to medium amounts of absorbed gamma radiation boosts immunity and resilience to ailments such as heart disease, though it may (or may not) increase rates of cancer. It has been suggested and that the reduction in the probability of death from other diseases offsets the increased probability of…
This makes me wonder what effect absolutely zero radiation would have on an individual. And on a population (e.g. would evolution be harmed by having no radiation at all?)
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#6http://imgur.com/wZjWF0l
same principle
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#7See my answer here: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/2490/1792 tl;dr: "There is empirical evidence that suggests that low to medium amounts of absorbed gamma radiation boosts immunity and resilience to ailments such as heart disease, though it may (or may not) increase rates of cancer. It has been suggested and that the reduction in the probability of death from other diseases offsets the increased probability of…
This makes me wonder what effect absolutely zero radiation would have on an individual. And on a population (e.g. would evolution be harmed by having no radiation at all?)
I would say that ionizing radiation isn't the cause of most genetic mutations. It is just too rare and most of it doesn't penetrate the skin anyway, the rest has to be really lucky to hit the cell in the right place at the right time.
DNA copying not being perfect would be the main cause in my opinion.
There is one error on average for every billion pairs copied. The human DNA has 3 billion pairs. So every time a single(!) cell is copied, three mistakes are made.
You don't need any radiation for evolution.
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#8See my answer here: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/2490/1792 tl;dr: "There is empirical evidence that suggests that low to medium amounts of absorbed gamma radiation boosts immunity and resilience to ailments such as heart disease, though it may (or may not) increase rates of cancer. It has been suggested and that the reduction in the probability of death from other diseases offsets the increased probability of…
What about other forms? Radiation is not radiation. There's gamma, X-ray, alpha, beta, neutron, microwave, infrared, etc. and they all have different biophysical effects.
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#9See my answer here: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/2490/1792 tl;dr: "There is empirical evidence that suggests that low to medium amounts of absorbed gamma radiation boosts immunity and resilience to ailments such as heart disease, though it may (or may not) increase rates of cancer. It has been suggested and that the reduction in the probability of death from other diseases offsets the increased probability of…
Risking cancer to diminish heart disease? lol no thanks. I'd rather eat vegetables and take a walk once in a while.
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#10You might look up radiation hormesis. It is very well documented in animal studies. Damage causes cellular repair mechanisms to undertake more work, and if the damage is little and brief, then there is a net gain in quality control. Less dysfunction, longer healthspan, longer life.
It operates in humans because all other mechanisms of hormesis operate in humans. All very well documented.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477686/
"Three aspects of hormesis with low doses of ionizing radiation are presented: the good, the bad, and the ugly. The good is acceptance by France, Japan, and China of the thousands of studies showing stimulation and/or benefit, with no harm, from low dose irradiation. This includes thousands of people who live in good health with high background radiation. The bad is the nonacceptance of radiation hormesis by the U. S. and most other governments; their linear no threshold (LNT) concept promulgates fear of all radiation and produces laws which have no basis in mammalian physiology. The LNT concept leads to poor health, unreasonable medicine and oppressed industries. The ugly is decades of deception by medical and radiation committees which refuse to consider valid evidence of radiation hormesis in cancer, other diseases, and health. Specific examples are provided for the good, the bad, and the ugly in radiation hormesis."