Why are people so afraid of radiation?
I have been reading this forum since the begining and I have seen the fear here. It has caused me to question: Why we are so afraid of radiation?
In life we take many risks every day in almost everything we do. When we drive a car or fly on a plane there is risk. When we eat there is risk from pesticides, cancer causing agents like aflitoxin, ecoli and food poisoning, etc. etc. etc. Many people are obese, smoke or have a sedentary lifestyle. These are all material risks. In many cases we don't care to know about the risk or we don't even pay attention to it. Radiation is different. It really scares many people.
What is different about radiation than all of the other risks? Why does it scare people so much?
Decontaminate or Evacuate
Decontaminate or Evacuate
…
Since September the government decided to talk about decontamination in order to avoid evacuation.
http://www.majiroxnews.com/2011/10/28/women-stage-sit-in-protest-against...
10/28/2011By majiroxnews
TOKYO — Activists, mainly women, took part in a three-day sit-in which began on Oct. 27, in front of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) in Tokyo. Mioko Smith said “There are several places that have contamination that is so high that you would be exposed to 20 millisieverts a year. This is the official evacuation trigger level the government set, but they still won’t declare the area an evacuation zone.”
Another issue the group brought up with the commission was why the large Watari district does not have the stringent levels set for children and pregnant women as other cities. When asked about the government’s response to their demands, Mioko Smith said, “Since September the government’s stance has become clear. They have decided to talk about decontamination in order to avoid evacuation.”
The sit-in called Fukushima 100: Women Choosing to Live without Nuclear Power was the idea of Sachiko Sato and Yukiko Anzai. On a flight to Japan from New York in September, the women decided they needed to do something to protect children living in the contaminated areas. They were part of a delegation that discussed the plight of children in the Fukushima region with the UN High Commission on Human Rights.
Hot Babies
Other Chernobyl fallout studies give folks with pregnant wives a reason to be more concerned about low fallout than people here are saying we should be:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2280#comment-830
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2010.00814.x/abst...
"Adolescents exposed to low-dose ionizing radiation in utero scored significantly lower in full-scale IQ than unexposed adolescents. The difference was restricted to verbal IQ and was not evident for nonverbal IQ. The effect was not observed in exposed adolescents who had passed the most sensitive gestational period prior to the accident and thus were exposed to the radiation from Chernobyl exclusively after gestational week 16. These participants performed as well as the controls. Although the results should be interpreted cautiously due to the study’s nonrandomized design, the data add new and important support to the hypothesis that the Chernobyl accident may have had a subtle effect on the cognitive functioning of those exposed to low-dose ionizing radiation in utero during the most sensitive gestational period."
and
http://nonuclear.se/files/ijerph-06-03105.pdf
"The fetal exposures to fallout from the Chernobyl accident in the combined exposed population of 2204055 children in Germany, Greece and the United Kingdom resulted in a 43% increase in infant leukemia, a disease associated with a gene mutation in utero. The specificity of the cohort defined it as one in which exposure to the radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident is the only possible cause of the increased infant leukemia incidence. Since the mean calculated weighted fetal dose to this population was 0.067mSv, this finding defined an error in the ICRP risk model for this kind of exposure and suggests that it is unsafe to predict risks from chronic exposure to internal radionuclides on the basis of external doses. Using the best data for external fetal exposures and leukemia, that of the Oxford Obstetric X-ray studies of Stewart et al. [18,19] the error in employing such an approach is upward of 160-fold."
Cancer Ward
Have you been to a cancer ward lately?
Right Radiation Fear
*
We are bombarded with conflicting information on the "right way to fear radiation."
English: http://mdn.mainichi.jp/perspectives/news/20111024p2a00m0na007000c.html
Japanese: http://mainichi.jp/select/seiji/fuchisou/news/20111024ddm002070069000c.html
Soon after Japan's own nuclear disaster began, radiation hygiene expert Shinzo Kimura rushed to Fukushima Prefecture to take radiation measurements while also responding to local residents' concerns and advising them on decontamination procedures.
"I've been conducting interviews with the residents for years, and the trends that have emerged, including from interviews conducted with doctors at the district's central hospital, is that about 70 percent of the people clearly feel that they have developed health problems," Kimura said. With children, the health effects have appeared mostly in the form of compromised immune systems, esophagitis and gastritis. Adults, meanwhile, have mainly developed cardiovascular diseases and cancer. There are some who say they haven't developed any health problems. However, Kimura adds that those who have been especially emphatic about their lack of health issues have links to positions of power in the town government.
It is human nature to try to underplay the seriousness of the ongoing crisis when one has family and friends with ties to the government or Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), operator of the stricken Fukushima plant. That kind of reaction is the same anywhere in the world.
We are bombarded with conflicting information on the "right way to fear radiation." What are the problems, and what do we really need? Using my own eyes, ears and legs, and relying on the networks that I've forged with trustworthy experts in various fields, I continue to search for the answer.
(By Takao Yamada, Expert Senior Writer)
Why
Why do governments such as USSR, Japan, England, France and the USA deliberately low-ball radioactive releases?
Proof of low balling?
Proof of low balling?
evidence
Lots of evidence of low-balling ...
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/5835
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/5831
Not evidence yet. That
Not evidence yet. That paper has yet to be peer reviewed. Plus looking over it they do have some problems with their modeling. The model overestimates the release. Also, many of the claims on those topics lack evidence also. The truth is no one really knows the actual value right now. It is a complex event that will take years before any good evidence can be found.
ZAMG = 66 PBq 03/22/2011
*
Oh, Yeah ... the peer review process is WELL underway ... before the draft is flung onto the open internet for ALL to see ...
66 PBq published by ZAMG
Our total a posteriori emission is lower than the first estimate of 66 PBq published by the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics (ZAMG 2011) on 22 March
considerably higher than the estimate of Chino et al. (2011) of 13 PBq
The upper panel of Fig. 5 shows the a priori and a posteriori emissions of 137Cs. The total a posteriori 137Cs emission is 35.8 PBq, 34% more than the first guess emission (Table 3) and about 42% of the estimated Chernobyl emission of 85 PBq (NEA, 2002). Our total a posteriori emission is lower than the first estimate of 66 PBq published by the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics (2011) on 22 March, but considerably higher than the estimate of Chino et al. (2011) of 13 PBq. Both previous estimates were based on only few selected measurements. Our emission is in relatively good agreement with the Institut de Radioprotection et de Surete Nucleaire (2011) estimate of 30 PBq caesium (including isotopes other than 137Cs) for the period 12–22 March.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/11/28319/2011/acpd-11-28319-2011.pdf
Supplementary material related to this article is available online at:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/11/28319/2011/acpd-11-28319-2011-...
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111025/full/478435a.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111025/full/478435a/box/2.html
Do you believe neutrinos
Do you believe neutrinos travel faster than light? Because that paper was released online before peer review and counters earlier reports that they don't.
I Believe
;)
"I Believe", that TEPCO 'low-balled' their radionuclide emission reports.
Well if you want to use
Well if you want to use science the answer is no one knew. TEPCO gave a result, offsite monitoring also shows some idea of release. However, it will be awhile until the actual number is known. It could be more or less than what TEPCO initially said. It was also believed that it was just partial meltdowns, now we know they were full. That changes things. They could have been correct for the release due to partial meltdowns, but once they knew it was full the new data comes out.
La La Land
Yer dreamin
Will To Survive
:(
I'm thinking ... survival instincts
Radiation accumulates in
Radiation accumulates in gene pools. Your entire progeny can be damaged from radiation exposure to you.
life
More radiation = less life.
not fear, common sense
Not necessarily. We are
Not necessarily. We are advancing our technologies faster than we are adding more radiation to the planet.
Trust science and try to remember that Nature is not in fact our friend but our foe.
circle of life
You will die. I will die. A new generation will be born. A generation that is integral, though neither 'friend' or 'foe', to nature.
That is nature. Concentrations of radiation, damages life and sometimes this main spring of nature upon which all of life depends.
As to "We are advancing our technologies faster than we are adding more radiation to the planet."...... I don't see it. The single point you set out in your brief entry is wrong enough to condemn dozens of generations to increasing expressions of permanent genetic damage.
Hung out in the Ukraine recently? A friend just returned and has had interesting experiences which I would be glad to share.
I am anything but a Luddite. I don't think Albert was either. I do however see him referring in part to your train of thought on where and what we trust when he said;
“The splitting of the atom changed everything, save man’s mode of thinking. Thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophe”
Let us stop creating spreading radioactive poisons longer lived than all of recorded history and spewing other novel, amazingly toxic radioisotopes in the biosphere. Let's continue our inquiry, our research while we stop the drift, yes ?
Mother Nature does it...
Let us stop creating spreading radioactive poisons longer lived than all of recorded history and spewing other novel, amazingly toxic radioisotopes in the biosphere.
===========================
Mother Nature has mankind beat by a long shot. Courtesy of the University of Michigan, check out how much of your radiation dose is due to Mother Nature and how much is due to man:
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm
Additionally, Mother Nature has made some very long lived radioisotopes. For example, Potassium-40 that you will find in bananas and in your tissues has a 9 BILLION year half life. That's twice the age of the Earth.
Uranium-238 has a 4.5 BILLION year half-life, which is about equal to the age of the Earth.
Mother Nature outproduces man in the generation of radioisotopes by a wide margin, and there is nothing uniquely sinister about the radioisotopes that man makes. Mother Nature's radiation is just as dangerous as ours.
truth
Mother Nature has mankind beat by ....
--
'Naturally' occurring radiation should be considered in all it's wonderful diversity, please don't lump it. The broad spectrum, diverse sources and many adaptions that life have made to these, including K-40, are perhaps even part of the larger mechanism of life.
Even Uranium, depending on isotope, actual physical state of the molecule (nano particles from reactor and weapons are bad news), concentration and of course the individual, can be excreted more or less.
Don't lump. Reductionism is so condescending. On this subject it is the road that leads away from truth and understanding.
Reactors and bombs produce, among lots of highly toxic isotopes, the novel, bioacumulating, Ca, K analogs of Sr-90 and Cs-137, 134, respectively. Insidious poisons. The mechanism's of these poisons, their extraordinary impact, are fascinating.
Unless exposed to lots of external emitters (airplane crews, medical techs, nuclear workers) it is the inhaling, ingesting the super nasty fallout radioisotopes, esp larger doses and 'hot particles', that cause radiation diseases that take away life.
Got it?
Fantasy..
First, it's not reductionism; we are talking scientific FACTS
Please don't minimize truth and understanding by calling it reductionism.
Save the philosophical platitudes for another forum.
For the most part here, we are talking about beta-emitters, both natural and man-made. The radiation from beta-emitters are electrons. Although they may have different kinetic energies, those electrons are all the same.
You can't, and your cells can't tell the difference between an electron emitted by a "natural" radioisotope and a "man made" radioisotope. The electrons are the same; just as the electrons in an arc of lightning are the same as those that come from your local power plant.
Your largest source of radiation damage is inhalation of radon; and that is due to Mother Nature. Numerically illerate types attempt to blame nuclear power and weapons for the bulk of radiation dose, but those exposures pale compare to those due to Mother Nature. Courtesy of the University of Michigan:
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm
Nuclear power ( "nuclear fuel cycle" in table ) and fallout from nuclear tests ( that we no longer do ), each account for 0.03% of the average person's radiation exposure.
Do you understand numbers? Do you understand that the dose due to Mother Nature is about 3000X that due to nuclear power and weapons fallout??
Mother Nature is where the bulk of the radiation damage comes from, not man.
lumping is NOT science, nor is anthropomorphizing is radiation
We are indeed adapted to mostly cope with some forms, sources of radiation, the sun, K-40 for instance. Cosmic radiation hardly 'sees' us at all. We are not dense enough... smile. Life evolved with these forms and sources radiation and so we are sufficiently adapted to sustain life. Some forms, sources of radiation are rather novel and present challenges that we can only avoid if we want to sustain health.
The biological effects of radiation are myriad, and are DIRECTLY related in large part to differences in SOURCE. It is a vast subject. Most of the beta radiation we are exposed to is from non-novel sources. Sustained damage, the damage that leads to disease, is a result of damage to the cell that it is unable to repair.
Welcome to the modern world everyone. It is now increasingly important to understand how and why novel sources radiation that can be quite damaging.
Details ARE important. Following a reductionist methodology leads away from a complete understanding.
It is true that the normal effluents from nuclear power are most (all?) beta emitters, however history shows us that nuclear power includes plenty of extraordinary emission events that include the alpha emitters and we should expect them in the future as well if we continue to operate nuclear power plants.
One thing at a time. Lets just discuss internal emitters as I concede that the increases in external emitters as been small and possibly negligible so far. While sunburn can lead to cancer, the internal accumulation of novel radioisotopes seems the concern of the day.
Lets further limit this to beta emitters which is of wider concern.
I am glad to have acknowledgement of the detail of different kinetic energies in beta emitters. All internal beta emitters do not have the same effect on the body. The differences are due, at a minimum, to biochemical AS WELL AS energetic reasons. Bioaccumulation and localized concentrations at a cellular level are part the long term and insidious problem the novel bio-analog radio isotopes present.
The statement of "Although they may have different kinetic energies, those electrons are all the same." is great because it shows some awareness...but not the salient facts.
A 500 KeV beta decay product is much more likely to collide with matter than a 1200 gamma emission so if your attempting to say the the radiation from K-40 has the same effect in a system of cells as Sr-90, I-131 or even Cs-137 you are mistaken.
In summary the novel radioactive bioaccumulatiors have novel toxic biochemistry and energetic fingerprint resulting in concentrated, novel and localized damage.
Details count.
Of course I must concede that it is most likely the abundant toxins and mostly non-novel radiation sources that we are exposed to that leads to the gradual degradation of our cells which can (and eventually does) give rise to gradual aging and disease for most people.
So on the whole every instance of radiation exposure likely to be unique in some aspect and therefore likely to present novel damage, challenges to the cell, with the greater the novelty/intensity/duration the greater the chance of a unrecoverable damage.
Fly at night, wear a hat, avoid fallout, etc.
Namaste
Details do count.
A 500 KeV beta decay product is much more likely to collide with matter than a 1200 gamma emission so if your attempting to say the the radiation from K-40 has the same effect in a system of cells as Sr-90, I-131 or even Cs-137 you are mistaken.
Details count.
====================================
So why are you making the apples to oranges comparison of a 500 KeV electron with a "1200" ( no units ) gamma emission; when the previous poster was comparing betas to betas.
Another detail you left out is that the electrons slow down in traversing matter. Sure radioisotope A produces originally a 500 KeV electron, and radioisotope B produces a 450 KeV electron. In a short distance, that 500 KeV electron will have lost 50 KeV, and is then EXACTLY the same as the 450 KeV electron.
That's what you are evidently missing in your understanding. The bulk of the energy deposited by the 500 KeV electron will be when it is indistinguishable from the 450 KeV electron emitted by the other radioisotope.
Better study some charged particle slowing down theory before your embarrass yourself again.
Think In Three Dimensions..... with flavor !
I know you don't really want me to take offense. It just seems that way, huh? Do (or did) you have students at one time? Did they annoy you ? being happy is a matter of perspective and it can be improved with effort.
Thanks for adding some detail and in the process for making my point and agreeing with me, in part, so far. In doing so seems you've reversed yourself.... changing one's position as knowledge and understanding is gained is healthy.
I must insist however that you cant't have it both ways (we are not YET discussing quantum mechanics).
Either the decay products for I-131, Cs 137, K-40 are all the same ('man-made vs 'natural') or they are not. Your latest post you've that radiation Cs-137 and K-40 are of different effect. That is part of the reason Cs-137 is of more damaging effect that K-40, but only part of the reason I am sure.
Yes they are different. In fact I love to see a complete breakdown of all aspects of each of them including probability for the various paths of decay with each stage of the decay broken down in detail. They would no doubt contrast quite sharply. And yet most organisms readily absorb Cs-137 through pathways where Potassium would travel. In fact many (most ?) organisms chemically bind Cs-137 more tightly than they would Potassium, explaining at least in part why Cs-137 so strongly bioaccumulates, where K-40 does not. I seems most organisms just keep getting hotter and hotter as the Cs-137 keeps replacing the Potassium. Sound nasty because IT IS.
The probability of a beta emission interacting with matter...
How much time have you spent with cloud chamber ? Ever notice how some trails are fat and short, others long and quite thin, some straight and others just a comma or a arc? There is more to the potential interaction than the energy at the point of generation. You know that the voltage is just one abstract...silly.
But let's say for the sake of argument that it is a two dimensional world. So in this flat reality then the only difference is distance. Again that fits the model for damaging vs less damaging in that further away is likely more distributed. Also the further away from a cellular structure (where the Cs-137 is employed) the more likely it will simply create H20e, a nasty but manageable free radical).
The same would be the case for any of the different bio analogs Like Sr-90, but of course in different tissues.
Think turbo-charged heavy metals on steroids.
Love to see that decay mapping for our favorite bioaccumulating radioisotopes (and K-40)... anyone ?
WHAT???
But let's say for the sake of argument that it is a two dimensional world. So in this flat reality then the only difference is distance. Again that fits the model for damaging vs less damaging in that further away is likely more distributed.
==========================
What a bunch of "gobbledy gook"; the whole post.
As far as the radiation emitted from these beta emitters; they release electrons, and one electron is like another. The only difference is the initial energy of the electron, but the electron slows down. Therefore, at some point it will have the same energy as another radioisotope may initially emit an electron at.
From then on; the damage done by the two radioisotopes will be essentially the same.
More MISINFORMATION
We are indeed adapted to mostly cope with some forms, sources of radiation, the sun, K-40 for instance. Cosmic radiation hardly 'sees' us at all. We are not dense enough... smile. Life evolved with these forms and sources radiation and so we are sufficiently adapted to sustain life. Some forms, sources of radiation are rather novel and present challenges that we can only avoid if we want to sustain health.
===============================================
WRONG!! The forms of radiation that man-made radioisotopes produce are the SAME as those made by Mother Nature. This is the same BS that you see on anti-nuclear websites, and it is NOT rooted in science.
As I previously stated, the majority of the radioisotopes that we are considering here, both man-made and natural, are beta-emitters. That means they emit high-energy electrons.
What the anti-nukes don't realize is that there is no difference in the electrons. An electron is an electron is an electron. There are differences in kinetic energy of the electrons. However, it is not the case that all the man-made radioisotope betas are more energetic than the naturally made radioisotope betas.
Yes - we evolved and adapted to the natural radiation around us. We have a radiation damage repair mechanism. However, our cells don't know whether the radiation that damaged them is "natural" or "man made". Hence, the same radiation damage repair mechanism that we count on to protect us from naturally derived radiation, we can count on to EQUALLY protect us from radiation from man-made radioisotopes.
This "natural radioactivity is OK, man-made radioactivity is sinister" is just plain scientific BS. I can't believe there are people so unintelligent that they are fooled by this BS.
What counts is only the total radiation dose you receive, and in that matter, Mother Nature is far and away the largest source of radiation that you receive. Courtesy of the University of Michigan:
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm
Your right, we need a seperate BIOACCUMULATION thread
" ... The forms of radiation that man-made radioisotopes produce are the SAME as those made by Mother ..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry, Way to general a statement fails to be anything other than meaningless. Reductionism requires a bit more horsepower than that. Try harder.
It Continues....Classic case of you missed the point, again.
So here is the point you need address (or run from): It is the biological effect of the often concentrated and in come cases unique MAN MADE RADIOISOTOPES That is of concern and the basis for the GROWING and HEALTHY fear of nuclear power.
In any case I guess you forgot about all that HIGHLY CONCENTRATED ALPHA radiation from nukes, but they are easy to miss, huh? Whatever..... your 'forms of radiation' is MEANINGLESS, it seems your TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT, Again.....
You have to come up to speed. Call me crazy, but I still think you can make a positive contribution here. In the meantime Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-10-29 21:25 I have a new handle for you....
UsedToWorkForTobacco
I suggest you use it so we can separate you from the (other ?) shills.
"Of course I must concede
"Of course I must concede that it is most likely the abundant toxins and mostly non-novel radiation sources that we are exposed to that leads to the gradual degradation of our cells which can (and eventually does) give rise to gradual aging and disease for most people."
Imagine, if that were shown to be the case,
and then you gave people a choice:
1) Have Nuclear Power and nasty toxins in the environment
or
2) Live for 300 cancer-free years in the body of a 25 year old
Now, which do you think most people would choose?
Would people still support Nuclear Power I wonder?
Has anybody done the obvious experiment on mice or some-such to remove or seriously reduce ALL radioactive isotopes from their environment and their food and breed them in those conditions for a few generations to see whether the offspring live a bit longer??
GEESH!
1) Have Nuclear Power and nasty toxins in the environment
or
2) Live for 300 cancer-free years in the body of a 25 year old
Now, which do you think most people would choose?
Would people still support Nuclear Power I wonder?
------------------------------------------------------
What a raving IDIOT you are. There is no evidence that people would live for 300 cancer-free years in the body of a 25 year old.
Were people living 300 cancer-free years about 5 or 6 decades ago before the genesis of nuclear power? NO!!
But your brain just doesn't have the mental horsepower to think that out.
The counter-example to your claim is staring you right in the face, and you don't have the intellect to see it.
tiger bin spell'n
I believe you meant Ganesha. Of course Shiva would have been a better exclamatory subject title given material at hand.
Of course I may be mistaken. You did make a monotheistic reference to Genesis... you know, the time when there was a firmament and people lived to be 900 years old...
I get worked up too. I know it is hard to exercise tact when one feels strongly.... but try please.
Oh, BTW, in your.... enthusiasm ? you missed the posters point... but perhaps that slow moving game just distracted you, you tiger you.
It is impossible to take someone even slightly seriously that comes across so angry and worked up.
Lighten up, have fun! BE NICE. Really. I'd hate to see anyone marched off in a straightjacket.
Who says I'm angry?
It is impossible to take someone even slightly seriously that comes across so angry and worked up.
Lighten up, have fun!
===========================
Who says I'm angry? I'm definitely not angry.
As for having fun - I AM having fun.
tactful play vs rough play
:)
No the poster is talking
No the poster is talking about reducing all "nasty toxins in the environment",
and that includes natural ones.
Haven't you read the other thread on this forum about the idea of reducing K40 in food?
It is worth seeing if reducing ALL radiation, environment and food, increases lifespan.
Experiments at the moment check the opposite, i.e. does increasing radiation shorten lifespan?
But what happens when you reduce all forms of radiation, internal and external, does that increase lifespan instead?
Aren't you interested to know?
Poppycock
Sorry but the proposal is ridiculous.
As BRAWM member Mark pointed out in one of those posts; the isotopic separation costs would be prohibitively expensive.
Look what it would take to conduct such an experiment. How do we feed our radiation free person. We can't feed them ordinary foods that we get from Nature, because they are radioactive. We would need to take all the proteins, amino acids, ... that are normally in food and break them down to their elemental constituents so that we can do isotopic separation.
Once we have radiation free elements, we then use them as the feedstock to chemically synthesize all those proteins, amino acids,... You are talking about doing some very expensive chemistry to build a lot of very complex chemical compounds from "purified" basic elements.
All this is premised on a faulty premise that radiation is responsible for our lack of longevity.
We know that the cellular reproduction mechanisms in our bodies have little time clocks. You know how when each time a rattlesnake molts, it generates a new ring for the rattle? Well, some DNA has this in reverse. Every time that DNA segment is copied it LOSES a short segment. It has a number of them on the end. Finally, when it has no more of these segments, it now "knows" not to copy again. It is hypothesized that aging and cancer genesis may be due to our DNA "counting down", and has absolutely NOTHING to do with radiation.
Again, you need to do your homework first. You don't just hypothesize something like Aristotle did. Your hypotheses in the scientific method should not just be pulled out of the air or your nether region; you let good science and not our politics guide you.
Reductionism
Time clocks tick tick...
And the alarm goes off..... Wake up Johnny boy your fantasy is over.
While the body is full of OBSERVED rhythms, cycles and phases there are no clocks. One event may be the precursor to another but nothing is A CLOCK or a calender any more than that Barium swallow the doctor ordered for you is a ray gun.
If your reference of clock is to the genetic material inside the cell and its replication you've stubbed your toe in another fit of reductionism.
There is no clock. You are mistaken.
You are objecting to this
You are objecting to this aging reduction by C14 K40 reduction hypothesis with just another hypothesis about what causes aging, that seems a rather weak argument against it to me.
WRONG!!
You are objecting to this aging reduction by C14 K40 reduction hypothesis with just another hypothesis about what causes aging, that seems a rather weak argument against it to me
=======================================
NO!! We don't have good evidence that C-14 and K-40 are causing cancer and aging.
However, we DO HAVE some good evidence that the DNA replication may be the cause.
Your C-14 and K-40 is purely ad hoc - there's nothing to substantiate it.
My alternative has some very good science behind it. Look up "telomeres":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere
Courtesy of the University of Utah:
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/traits/telomeres/
telomeres and radiosensitivity
Fascinating subject.
first page of a google search:
Is there a link between telomere maintenance and radiosensitivity?
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14680393
by P Slijepcevic - 2004 - Cited by 16 - Related articles
Several recent studies point to the possibility that telomere maintenance may constitute a potential genetic marker of radiosensitivity. For example, the human ...
Telomeres: hallmarks of radiosensitivity.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18006207
by A Ayouaz - 2008 - Cited by 12 - Related articles
Uncoupling of telomere length and radiosensitivity in mouse ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17613124
by CN Sprung - 2007 - Cited by 3 - Related articles
PURPOSE: To investigate the link between radiosensitivity and telomere
Show more results from nih.gov
Telomere length abnormalities in mammalian radiosensitive cells ...
www.mendeley.com/.../telomere-length-abnormalities-in-mammalian...
Telomere lengths in radiosensitive murine lymphoma cells L5178Y-S and parental radioresistant L5178Y cells were measured by quantitative fluorescence in ...
Telomere ... - Europa : CORDIS : Search : Simple search : Projects
cordis.europa.eu › CORDIS › Search › Simple search
Achievements: TELORAD shows that telomere radiosensitivity and telomere capping are significant steps in the formation and transmission of radiation-induced ..
.
Telomeres and radiosensitivity of individuals - Europa : CORDIS ...
cordis.europa.eu › CORDIS › Search › Simple search
Mice lacking functional telomerase are radiosensitive. Ataxia telangiectasia ...
Show more results from europa.eu
Is There a Link between Telomere Maintenance and Radiosensitivity?
www.jstor.org/stable/3581103
by P Slijepcevic - 2004 - Cited by 16 - Related articles
radiosensitive in vivo, show clear telomere alterations. The link between ... two phenotypes, namely radiosensitivity and telomere main- tenance, are linked. v ...
Telomere Length Abnormalities in Mammalian Radiosensitive Cells1
cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/61/3/912.full.pdf
by J McIlrath - 2001 - Cited by 83 - Related articles
Telomere lengths in radiosensitive murine lymphoma cells L5178Y-S and parental ... telomere length in radiosensitive cells (7 kb) in comparison with radiore- ...
Telomere length and radiosensitivity in human fibroblast clones ...
www.spandidos-publications.com/or/19/6/1605
While studies in telomerase-deficient mice and cells showed an inverse correlation between telomere length and radiosensitivity, it is less clear whether ...
Telomeres: Hallmarks of radiosensitivity - Elsevier
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0300908407002532
by A Ayouaz - 2008 - Cited by 12 - Related articles
We will examine the short term and long term consequences of damaged telomeres which are cellular radiosensitive and the promotion of the transmission of ...
Ads
TA-65 lengthens telomeres
www.tasciences.com
Repair age related
telomere damage.
Lengthen Telomeres
www.telomere-support.com
Live longer and healthier with
this innovative new product!
Can radiation cause
Can radiation cause cancer?
Yes or no?
Your cost objection to isotopic separation for food is just a red herring.
First it needs to be demonstrated whether or not there is a measurable benefit to reducing C14 and K40 in food.
Cancer and radiation
All we know are that LARGE doses of radiation can cause cancer.
We are not sure about the small doses.
Answer yes or no:
Is aspirin poisonous?
We know aspirin in very large doses is certainly toxic.
However, in small doses it is not.
So how about a campaign to save the lives of a whole bunch of people by eliminating aspirin? We know that aspirin in large doses is toxic, so logically if we eliminate aspirin we will save a bunch of lives. Right?
WRONG!!!
If everybody is taking their aspirin according to directions and only taking a couple tablets as needed, then getting rid of aspirin isn't going to do a DAMN thing about saving lives.
That's about as ill-considered as your suggestion. Just because radiation causes cancer in large doses is not evidence that it causes cancer in small doses.
Have you never heard the expression, "The dose makes the poison"?
It means that you can have a substance that is safe, like aspirin, or ordinary table salt; but if you ingest enough of it, it is toxic. It's not the substance per se, but the overdose of the substance.
Radiation may be exactly the same. As long as we stay within the limits of our bodies abilities to repair the minimal damage that small radiation doses cause, then we are OK. There's nothing to be gained by eliminating this small radiation dose, because the damage gets repaired anyway.
However, very large radiation doses which exceed the ability of the repair mechanism to deal with; should, of course, be avoided.
experiment
I doubt it. It would require creating a large isotope free environment which is beyond the pale in terms of cost. Some cosmic radiation would eventually hit a few to many crucial bits.... Do it deep in the ocean to further limit .... oh wait the oceans are hotting now as well...oh well.... pass the wine...
Internal radiation
Even if you could find an underwater area free of radiation, how do you avoid the radiation that comes from YOU!!
Remember that we, ourselves, are made of radioactive materials that are radioactive due to Mother Nature. We are made partially of Carbon; and a certain proportion of that Carbon is Carbon-14, courtesy of Mother Nature.
One of the other constituents of our make up is Potassium. However, a portion of the Potassium is Potassium-40 which is radioactive courtesy of Mother Nature.
Courtesy of the University of Michigan:
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm
Note from the table that your "Internal" radiation is 11% of your total.
The amount due to nuclear power ( "nuclear fuel cycle" in table ) is but 0.03%
That means that your body is irradiating itself 367 times as much as nuclear power plants are.
This attempt to extend life by reducing radiation is a "fool's errand". However, this website shows that there is no shortage of fools who want to try.
Pursuing a line of
Pursuing a line of discussion with little relevance is a great way to divert this thread from the RATIONALES and BASIS of FEAR of NUCLEAR POWER, WASTE and INHERENT RADIATION....
Red Stinky fish # 284......'Even if you could find an underwater area free of radiation, how do you avoid the radiation that comes from YOU!!'
LOL !
"You" is not required to run the silly experiment as a few eggs (and a subsequent generation) of a long-lived species would do.
This time I'll throw the stick and you can run fetch it. Or better yet, drop the stick and back away.
Reduce the C14 and K40 in
Reduce the C14 and K40 in food.
See the other thread on this forum about this.
HOW!!
Again - look at what it would take to reduce the C-14.
All those very complex proteins and amino acids and other complex organic compounds can not be used directly from Nature, because the natural version have radioactive atoms.
We would need to break all these highly complex compounds down to their basic elements, so that we can do isotopic separation on each element.
Then when you have radioactively "purified" elements, you have to put all those very complex organic compounds back together into proteins, amino acids....
All for what? The basic hypothesis that radiation is the cause of all cancer and aging is FLAWED.
How do you know that
How do you know that hypothesis is flawed?
Where is the experimental evidence to show it?
Science doesn't work that way!!
Science doesn't work that way. We don't ask people to prove a negative.
You don't say, "Where is your evidence that they hypothesis is flawed".
NO - we say "Where is the evidence that the hypothesis IS TRUE".
This backward reasoning by the anti-nukes has got to stop.
They need to present their case with evidence that this test would be worth something - and then we would consider it.
We don't consider "off the wall", and "out of the a--" suggestions just because there isn't evidence to disprove it.
Get your evidence first; then we can talk.
Not in Fukushima.
Not in Fukushima.
Even there...
Unless you are actually at the reactor site; even there.
Again, look at the numbers! Mother Nature is 3000X what you get from nuclear power.
Fukushima has to increase its radiation effect by a factor of 3000 in order to match Mother Nature. How big an area do you think it can do that in?
Again, unless you are actually at the reactor site; Mother Nature still wins.
Rocks vs thyroids
Just not so.
That is not even true for the air, the soil or the water now. It was not true prior to the world's worst, most expensive industrial disaster either if you consider the bone cells of the children being nuked by the strontium-90 that they picked up from the filthy reactors there.