University of South Carolina-study- Even low-level radioactivity is damaging
http://www.sc.edu/news/newsarticle.php?nid=5214#.UK0uo5G9KK3
Even low-level radioactivity is damaging
Broad analysis of many radiation studies finds no exposure threshold that precludes harm to life
http://www.sc.edu/news/newsarticle.php?nid=5214#.UK0uo5G9KK3
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Primary Source:
Original Article: Abstract Excerpts
"inconsistent with a general role of hormetic positive effects of radiation on living organisms"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00249.x/abst...
The effects of natural variation in background radioactivity on humans, animals and other organisms
Anders P. Møller1,*, Timothy A. Mousseau2
Article first published online: 8 NOV 2012
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00249.x
© 2012 The Authors. Biological Reviews © 2012 Cambridge Philosophical Society
A total of 46 studies with 373 effect size estimates revealed a small, but highly significant ...
Second, different mean effect sizes on broad categories
Third, these negative effects of radiation on mutations, immunology and life history are inconsistent with a general role of hormetic positive effects of radiation on living organisms.
From Radiology journal...
From the journal Radiology:
The Linear No-Threshold Relationship Is Inconsistent with Radiation Biologic and Experimental Data
http://radiology.rsna.org/content/251/1/13.full
Bass Ackwards
Kind of a STUPID mistake for a (purportedly) 'serious' academic paper.
Read it! The following verbattum statement is 'arse-backwards', besides having a premise that is clearly, fundamentally, and dangerously false.
"For low linear energy transfer radiation, experimental animal data show the absence of carcinogenic effects for acute irradiation at doses less than 100 mSv and for chronic irradiation at doses less than 500 Sv."
From: http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/comment/reply/6815/26951#comment-26951
http://radiology.rsna.org/content/251/1/13.full
Bass Ackwards ... Incoherent and nutty
Actually this does make sense to people who know radiology...
Actually, this does make sense to people who know radiology.
Low Linear Energy Transfer or low LET radiation works in a matter that is counter-intuitive to those who haven't studied in the field.
The poster above makes the novice's mistake of thinking that the correlation between somatic effects and radiation is a linear one. That is not the case.
At the high dose end of the scale, the radiation just outright kills the cells. Such cells can't develop into cancers because they are dead. Cancers result only when the radiation is low enough not to kill the cell outright.
When you get an M.D. in radiology, then you can call refereed papers in legitimate medical journals "incoherent and nutty".
Until then, in order not to embarrass yourself further, I suggest you STFU.
Forum Contamination
To the above poster, it looks like the this forum is once again "contaminated" with idiot non-scientists applying their simplistic "logic" in a complicated field that they don't understand. Much of the science of radiation induced DNA damage is counter-intuitive, and we are once again barraged by non-experts that have never studied the field in an institute of higher learning, and who display analytical powers in science that are hardly worthy of an elementary school education. However, because these idiots are so damn self-righteous and self-serving and don't recognize any knowledgeable authority save for themselves; we will once again have to endure the "re-education" of these nitwits as the more knowledgeable members of this forum once again show these idiots to be the mental midgets that they are.
The idiots..
It appears that even when the errors of the self-righteous idiots are pointed out; they engage in feeble attempts to defend themselves and their uninformed logic; as witness below. Sigh!
Actually, Acute v Chronic
The 'Theme Sentence is incorrectly worded'.
Acute is a 1 time or short term exposure.
Chronic is a multiple, long term exposure.
For a given statistical carcinogenic increase; the acute dosage would be HIGHER than chronic dosage.
The 'Theme Sentence' of the above piece has the low dose and high dose REVERSED.
The paper is INHERENTLY INCONSISTENT as well as a cobbled together pack of lies.
It is rather doubtful that I will willingly STFU.
Do us a favor...
The above poster states:
It is rather doubtful that I will willingly STFU.
Please do us all a favor and follow the advice given.
Poison at any dose
Ionizing radiation causes cancer.
Ionizing radiation is harmful to living organisms.
There are NO positive general hormetic radiation effects on living organisms
"inconsistent with a general role of hormetic positive effects of radiation on living organisms"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00249.x/abst...
The effects of natural variation in background radioactivity on humans, animals and other organisms
Anders P. Møller1,*, Timothy A. Mousseau2
Article first published online: 8 NOV 2012
Biological Reviews
Out of step with the consensus of science
The above report is a "fringe" report that is "out of step" with the consensus of good science.
We know and have actually observed a DNA repair mechanism within our cells. That means that as long as you stay within the capability of the mechanism to repair damage; then that means there is a threshold.
Some of the best research in this area is done at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and was recently published in the highly prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Science:
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2011/12/20/low-dose-radiation/
“Our data show that at lower doses of ionizing radiation, DNA repair mechanisms work much better than at higher doses,” says Mina Bissell, a world-renowned breast cancer researcher with Berkeley Lab’s 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.”
Is CDC a fringe element that is 'out of step'
“CLL occurring among the clean-up workers was of a more aggressive form than is normally seen in the community.”
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docket/archive/pdfs/NIOSH-209/0209-010108-hambl...
Science Direct
Have we been wrong about ionizing radiation and chronic lymphocytic leukemia?
Abstract
It is almost axiomatic that chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is not caused by ionizing radiation. This assumption has been challenged recently by a critical re-appraisal of existing data. A recent paper implicated radon exposure in Czech uranium mine workers as a possible cause of CLL and in this issue of Leukemia Research the first paper examining the incidence of CLL among those exposed to radiation from the accident at the nuclear power plant in Chernobyl is published. It suggests that CLL occurring among the clean-up workers was of a more aggressive form than is normally seen in the community.
LNT for germs
People would understand this better if they just imagined that someone postulated an LNT theory for germs.
Germs will make you sick no matter how small the exposure to the germs. The slightest exposure to germs and pathogens is going to make you ill.
Of course, we all know that doesn't happen. We are constantly surrounded by germs and pathogens in our everyday life. These pathogens are not "benign" in that they have the capability to make us very ill and kill us.
Ever see someone with AIDS, and how the body is destroyed by disease? It's not the AIDS virus that does that; it's the everyday germs that all of us are exposed to routinely.
Why don't we all suffer the dire fate of the AIDS patient? We have healthy immune systems. It's the immune system that protects us from these everyday pathogens that have the capability to kill us. The AIDS virus destroys the immune system, so the AIDS patient doesn't have the protection of an immune system; and look what happens.
In order for us to live in the germ-ridden world that we do; we HAD to evolve an immune system to protect us. Otherwise, everyone would suffer the fate of the AIDS patient who is not protected by an immune system.
Likewise, this world is not only germ-ridden, but radiation-ridden. In order for us to survive on a world with the amount of radioactivity and radiation that we are daily exposed to courtesy of Mother Nature; we HAD to evolve a system that protects us from that radiation, and repairs the damage to our DNA.
We have such a system, and scientists have seen it in action.
Telling us that we are mortally harmed by the slightest amount of radiation is like telling everyone that we are mortally harmed by the slightest amount of germs and pathogens, and that we need to hose down our environment with anti-septics or we will all die a horrible death.
Hello Ann Coulter
The above cited Hormesis drivel, is poorly crafted. It confuses ACUTE (short-term) higher dosage and CHRONIC (long-term) lower dosage amounts in the 'Theme Sentence'.
Clearly, this reference has NOT been peer-reviewed; or even proof-read; before presentation on this forum. The source is bogus, AT 1st Glance!
The Hormesis Liars lost this one at the starting gate. The premise is stupid, wrong and dangerous. The cited reference is poorly crafted and CLEARLY unreviewed.
This dog won't hunt.
Once again we have people who don't know the science
There is a distinct difference between the concept of a radiation damage DNA repair mechanism and Hormesis. Hormesis is just a label that some here slap onto a legitimate scientific concept so that they can associate it with Ann Coulter or someone else they don't life in a futile attempt at arguing "guilt by association".
Let's apply this line of "thinking" again to the world of germs. Hormesis states that exposure to the pathogens is "good for you".
Let's see what happens when we apply this to germs. Perhaps the above poster is unfamiliar with how vaccines work. In a vaccine, a sample of the targeted pathogen is actually introduced to the body in either a killed or weakened form. For example, the Salk vaccine for polio is a killed virus version that is injected. The Sabin vaccine for polio is a weakened virus version that is taken in orally.
When the immune system is challenged by either the killed or weakened pathogen, it produces anti-bodies. Although the killed or weakened version of the virus doesn't present the same threat that a live virus would; the body responds the same way it would to the live virus in producing anti-bodies. These anti-bodies are then ready made and available should the organism actually encounter the real live virus.
In that sense, a little bit of pathogen is indeed "good for you".
The body's radiation response also exhibits similar behavior which is called an "adaptive response" and has actually been measured by scientists.
Courtesy of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:
Cells Respond Uniquely to Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation
https://www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug03/Wyrobek.html
Low Dose Exposure Can Protect
The team also discovered that the human lymphoblastoid cells exhibit what is called an adaptive response to ionizing radiation. An extremely low dose (also called a priming dose) appears to offer protection to the cell from a subsequent high dose (2 grays) of ionizing radiation. The degree of protection was measured by the amount of reduced chromosomal damage. A priming dose of 0.05 gray, administered about 6 hours before the high dose, can reduce chromosomal damage by 20 to 50 percent, compared with damage to cells that were not exposed to the priming dose.
So to a certain extent, Ann Coulter and the proponents of hormesis have a point, in that the actual radiation response is similar to the immune system response exploited by vaccines, in that a little radiation can be "good for you" in a sense.
That doesn't mean one has to accept the entire standing of Coulter and the hormesis proponents. However, science has shown that they are correct in a limited sense. Radiation response exhibits a vaccine-like nature.
Ionizing radiation is harmful to living organisms.
The concept is simple enough. Radionuclide intake is POISON at any dose. Ionizing radiation causes cancer. Ionizing radiation is harmful to ALL living organisms. There are NO positive general hormetic radiation effects on living organisms.
"inconsistent with a general role of hormetic positive effects of radiation on living organisms"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00249.x/abst...
The effects of natural variation in background radioactivity on humans, animals and other organisms
Anders P. Møller1,*, Timothy A. Mousseau2
Article first published online: 8 NOV 2012
Biological Reviews
SIMPLISTIC analysis
The concept is simple enough. Radionuclide intake is POISON at any dose. Ionizing radiation causes cancer. Ionizing radiation is harmful to ALL living organisms. There are NO positive general hormetic radiation effects on living organisms.
The concept above is simplistic enough - that is it has been made so simple as to be in ERROR.
The above statements are over-stated. Let's make an analogy with germs so that we can see how the above statements are in ERROR
Intake of germs are HARMFUL at any dose.
Germs cause disease.
Germs are harmful to ALL living organisms.
There are NO positive general effects on living organisms due to germs.
The first statement for both radiation and germs is just plain unsubstantiated dogma. Because we have a radiation damage repair mechanism for radiation damage and an immune system for germs; the intake of either radiation or germs is NOT necessarily harmful at any dose.
As Lawrence Berkeley National Lab researcher Mina Bissell states in her paper published in the highly prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2011/12/20/low-dose-radiation/
“Our data show that at lower doses of ionizing radiation, DNA repair mechanisms work much better than at higher doses,” says Mina Bissell, a world-renowned breast cancer researcher with Berkeley Lab’s 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.”
If your immune system detects and destroys an invading pathogen; then you are not damaged by the invasion of the pathogen. Likewise, if the radiation damage repair mechanism referred to by Dr. Bissell repairs the damage done by the radiation, then there is no lasting damage. Hence, Dr. Bissell's statement above that the idea that radiation leaves damage at all doses needs to be reconsidered.
Germs CAN cause disease, just as radiation CAN cause disease. However, just because one has an intake of either germs or radiation does not lead to the inevitable conclusion that disease or damage is the result. People have been exposed to both germs and radiation without ill effect. The fact that we have immune systems and radiation damage repair helps explain this result.
The last statement is also a dogmatic statement presented without substantiation. As in the case of germs; there is a positive effect that can result from exposure to low level of germs. That is how vaccines work. One exposes the organism to either killed or weakened version of the pathogen, and the resultant response of the immune system is the production of anti-bodies that can ward off an attack by a virulent version of the pathogen.
Likewise, Dr. Wyrobek of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, as well as other scientists have demonstrated an "adaptive response" due to the radiation damage repair mechanism.
Cells Respond Uniquely to Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation
https://www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug03/Wyrobek.html
Low Dose Exposure Can Protect
The team also discovered that the human lymphoblastoid cells exhibit what is called an adaptive response to ionizing radiation. An extremely low dose (also called a priming dose) appears to offer protection to the cell from a subsequent high dose (2 grays) of ionizing radiation. The degree of protection was measured by the amount of reduced chromosomal damage. A priming dose of 0.05 gray, administered about 6 hours before the high dose, can reduce chromosomal damage by 20 to 50 percent, compared with damage to cells that were not exposed to the priming dose.
The problem with some of the posters here is that they are offering dogmatic, unsubstantiated statements based on their belief that the radiation damage repair function doesn't exist. Their statements would be true if there were not a radiation damage repair mechanism. However, scientists like Dr. Bissell and Dr. Wyrobek have demonstrated conclusively that such a radiation damage repair mechanism does indeed exist.
It makes no sense to mindlessly parrot the reference to the Moller / Mousseau article. Their paper is essentially an "opinion" piece. This lies in stark contrast to the papers of Bissell and Wyrobek which offer the results of experiments.
In science, one has to let go of old opinions and beliefs when they are INVALIDATED by experiment.