[deleted]
Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
31–40 of 57 posts
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 sin…
But why are those mistakes made? Radiation?
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#33tl;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."
I remember some Russians that worked at Chernobyl commenting that the radiation exposure had other negative health effects besides cancer.
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#34See 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.
Banannas are radioactive. So are carrots and potatos, and some nuts and beans.
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#35One 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…
massive amount of information
I'm not so sure about that. As a general rule, we don't expose healthy people to large amounts of radiation; so it's hard to separate the effects of the radiation from the effects of whatever caused them to be irradiated.
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#36One 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…
Radiation oncology treatments usually focus a high dose on a single small area during a series of short time periods. So I think it would be difficult to draw any conclusions from that about the likely effects of low-dose whole body exposure over longer periods.
Radiation therapy treatments are almost always fractionated, meaning the total dose prescribed by the radiation oncologist is spread fairly evenly across multiple days, typically 25-38 treatments for most disease sites. And since patients are rarely treated on the weekend, it usually takes 1 to 2 months for a patient to complete treatment. I don't know that I would consider 1 to 2 months a short time. There are some exceptions, such as gamma knife for brain cancer, in which the entire prescribed dose is delivered all in one session.
Also, radiation therapy is often used to treat not-so-small areas (volumes). For example, mesothelioma cases often require irradiation of the entire thoracic cavity. And if that isn't a big enough target for you, well, total body irradiation is actually a pretty common modality for certain, less localized, cancers originating in the blood and bone marrow. Both external beam irradiation (for mesothelioma) and total body irradiation treatments are always fractionated, generally delivering no more than 2 Gy to a patient in a single day, to give healthy tissue time to recover between fractions. Having said all that, you are right that this is still quite unlike the conditions presented in the article. Perhaps you would prefer studies analyzing the increased exposure of long-haul international airline flight crews.
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#37This is a joke right? I mean everyone knows that ingesting lead totally leads to being content in life... it is like a non-sugar based sweeter to water. Makes life sweeter - obviously a logical conclusion. Every time my homeopathic doctor proscribes me ditch weed and lead I feel really good about myself not making logic jumps. In Fact my mind can't jump anymore.
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#38One 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…
You're right, mostly. Considerably more data has been obtained from the fields of radiation oncology and medical physics about the effects of radiation on the body in the time since WWII. The main difference, I would argue, is that the article (as you also mention) is talking about alpha particle radiation. Most radiation oncology data comes from x-ray, gamma ray, and electron modalities. Heavy ions, including alpha particles, affect tissue rather differently. There is, however, a growing amount of data available from proton therapy and carbon therapy modalities.
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#39Making the claim "Radioactivity is good for them." without any additional qualification seems irresponsible. One might similarly claim that eating fried chicken and bacon everyday is "good" for someone because it makes them feel happy. Of course, this ignores the fact that doing so dramatically increases their risk of heart disease. Overall, this article seems to be written for the layman, where all forms of radiation are created equal (untrue). The research that the article describes may very well show that sustained low exposure to alpha particle radiation reduces symptoms of arthritis. It should stop there though rather than make judgement as to whether or not it is good or bad.
Re: Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought
#40Again?
googling site:ycombinator.com "radiation hormesis" gives 15 stories where this has been discussed.