Yes, they is!
Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
11–20 of 57 posts
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#12A previous discussion:
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#13Humans evolved in sunlight receiving constant low doses of radiation. It seems logical to me that something in which is part of, the environment a species evolved to, would tend to have positive effects.
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#14One thing I did not see mentioned in the article, and which seems to never make it into most articles about the risks (or hypothetical benefits) of radiation exposure, is the massive amount of information we have about the effects of radiation from radiation oncology. Six times as many people as were exposed at Hiroshima are irradiated on purpose in the USA alone every year. And the radiation is actually measured and planned. So Hiroshima is so far from our largest or best data set it is funny. I don't have numbers, but I'm willing to bet that more patients have had radiation treatment for non-cancerous diseases than exist in the Hiroshima cohort.
Epidemiology isn't one of my specialties, but radon and radiation measurement actually are. I'm skeptical about the radon baths, simply because that is NOT a low level of radon, in the sense of a statistically uncertain long-term hazard level. A typical radon bath is in the thousands of pCi/L, which is about a thousand times higher than the level at which mitigation would be required for health reasons for a dwelling. However, the amount of time spent there is low. So, it is like having a non-smoker smoke a thousand cigarettes all at once, instead of over the course of a year. Might that kick-start something in their body? Certainly, but it does not fall under the normal hormesis rubric. And alpha particle damage tends to be high and localized.
Paracelsus said the dose makes the poison, which is true. But in addition, time makes the dose. I have no problem drinking 100 liters of water over a few months, but that would be a fatal dose in an hour. More attention needs to be paid to the time component of radiation dosing and threshold effects.
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#15See 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.
Don't walk in sunlight or you'll get exposed to low doses of radiation that "could" cause cancer. Also be cautious about where you buy those vegetables. There is a good chance they could contain things that also "could" cause cancer.
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#16Humans evolved in sunlight receiving constant low doses of radiation. It seems logical to me that something in which is part of, the environment a species evolved to, would tend to have positive effects.
> It seems logical to me that something in which is part of, the environment a species evolved to, would tend to have positive effects.
Not to me. Now, "tend not to have a negative effect on reproduction", sure.
But there's no reason evolution should make it beneficial, nor even neutral to those past breeding years.
For instance, if radiation caused humans to die younger than otherwise due to cancer, but still to live long enough to crank out a litter of babies and raise them to adulthood.... then evolution probably wouldn't care. Hell, evolution would love the way it gets rid of the chaff and frees up resources for the breeders.
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#17Humans evolved in sunlight receiving constant low doses of radiation. It seems logical to me that something in which is part of, the environment a species evolved to, would tend to have positive effects.
Why? It may be harmful, but we've evolved to cope tolerably.
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#18Humans evolved in sunlight receiving constant low doses of radiation. It seems logical to me that something in which is part of, the environment a species evolved to, would tend to have positive effects.
Do large predators have a positive effect on human health?
I'm not trying to be funny with this, I'm just pointing out that human benefit isn't strictly increasing on all environmental factors, and that some of the evolutionary adaptation our species went through was about strictly avoiding sources of harm. Being present in the environment doesn't imply being somehow beneficial.
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#19Humans evolved in sunlight receiving constant low doses of radiation. It seems logical to me that something in which is part of, the environment a species evolved to, would tend to have positive effects.
Do large predators have a positive effect on human health? I'm not trying to be funny with this, I'm just pointing out that human benefit isn't strictly increasing on all environmental factors, and that some of the evolutionary adaptation our species went through was about strictly avoiding sources of harm. Being present in the environment doesn't imply being somehow beneficial.
Not just humans evolved in low doses of radiation but, all land creatures have. Also not all life on earth was necessarily constantly exposed to large predators.
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#20Humans evolved in sunlight receiving constant low doses of radiation. It seems logical to me that something in which is part of, the environment a species evolved to, would tend to have positive effects.
Why? It may be harmful, but we've evolved to cope tolerably.
I should of said it wouldn't surprise me if it had positive effects. It would surprise if we hadn't evolved as you said to tolerate low doses. I can't think of anything else all land creatures evolved exposed to that is really harmful.