Low (Slow) Doses Cause More Cancer than High (Fast) Dose /as Small as 0.5 mSv Cause Cancer/ (Dave)

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2012-01-18 12:24

http://fairewinds.com/content/cancer-risk-young-children-near-fukushima-... A 15 country study authored by 51 radiation scientists of 407,391 nuclear industry workers is the largest study ever conducted of nuclear power workers and found significant increases in cancers from low (slow) dose exposure. Implied average dose of 2 mSv/year. Most workers received less than 0.5 mSv/y (median average dose) . In fact, a study quoted suggests that low, slow dose rates might be more harmful than high, fast dose rates. The study found a greater incidence of cancer among nuclear power industry workers (low slow dose exposure) than among atom bomb survivors of Hiroshima (high fast dose exposure).
Video also discusses chromosomal translocation and chromosomal aberrations from low dose rates of exposure. The frequency of chormosomal translocations actually INCREASES as the (X-ray) dose decreases and by an order of magnitude. Another example of low dose exposure actually being worse than higher doses.

‹ Would you eat dolphin or whale meat caught off the coast of Japan ? Eeeek no friggin' way ! Radiation readings on Planes ›

Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Research

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2012-01-18 15:10.

Latest from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science:

http://lowdose.energy.gov/

http://www.examiner.com/science-in-south-bend/dna-repair-centers-fix-low...

“Our data show that at lower doses of ionizing radiation, DNA repair mechanisms work much better than at higher doses,” says Mina Bissell, breast cancer researcher with the Life Sciences Division. “This non-linear DNA damage response casts doubt on the general assumption that any amount of ionizing radiation is harmful and additive.”

Have to trust the nuclear

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2012-01-18 14:22.

Have to trust the nuclear expert Ian Goddard. His occupation, graphic artist with a degree in computer studies.

Funny how BEIR VII does not

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2012-01-18 14:13.

Funny how BEIR VII does not contain information on human low doses, yet he can claim increased human cancer rates. Also, the assumption of linear no threshold has ZERO scientific evidence to back it up. In fact, there is far more evidence that low doses are healthier than dangerous. Also the 15 country paper that attributed increased cancer from low doses did not take into account the socioeconomic status of the workers. Which means the amount of smoking workers did was not taken into account. A later analysis that took into account smoking found no statistical increase in the cancer rate. Goes to show you how people can use statistics to prove anything they want. All you need to do is ignore important variables.

This flies in the face of ALL previous studies.

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2012-01-18 14:06.

Another example of low dose exposure actually being worse than higher doses.
=======================================

This flies in the face of ALL previous studies.

It's like saying that if you have a daily drink of wine every day for the next 20 years, that you will have a worse case of alcohol toxicity than if you drank all that wine in a single sitting.

I don't believe it.