Radiation is good for our health
I'm not buying this but it's worth a read.
Japan Needs to Avoid Russia's Mistake on Chernobyl
TUCSON, Ariz., June 1, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Japan's already reeling economy could be crushed by over-reaction to the Fukushima disaster, warns radiation scientist T.D. Luckey in the summer 2011 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. www.jpands.org/vol16no2/luckey.pdf
Japan should not repeat the mistake that Russia made in the tremendous unwarranted expense of its reaction to Chernobyl. As Mikhail Gorbachev understood too late, "The nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl 20 years ago…was perhaps the real cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union five years later."
Japan should not act on the false presumption, shared by most of the world's press, that all radiation is harmful, Luckey states. Although high-dose radiation is clearly lethal, and excess doses (>200 mSv over an extremely short time, as from the atomic bomb blasts) can induce cancer, thousands of scientific papers show actual benefits from low doses, including the prevention of cancer and birth defects.
We live with chronic radiation deficiency, Luckey believes. The worldwide background dose of about 3 mSv per year is much less than the optimum dose of around 100 mSv per year; this is 100 times lower than the dose that divides healthful from harmful effects of excess radiation.
Chronic exposure of around 50 mSv per year for two decades in accidentally contaminated apartments in Taiwan was associated with only 3.5 cancer deaths per 1,000, compared with the 116 per 1,000 "normally" expected.
Cancer mortality in 7,430 survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who received between 10 and 19 mSv was significantly lower than that of controls.
At Fukushima there have been no cases of radiation sickness, and no deaths from radiation exposure. The feared cancer deaths are all theoretical ones, predicted for years in the future. Based on past experience, there will probably be fewer cancer deaths than "normal," Luckey concludes.
Japan should not imitate Russia in squandering billions of dollars to "protect" people from radiation that is actually beneficial. It should instead base its response on sound scientific data rather than unjustified fear.
SOURCE Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/japan-needs-to-avoid-russias-mis...
It's so irresponsible for
It's so irresponsible for this article to be written without at least acknowledging (let alone countering) that this man hold a minority view among scientists and epidemiologists that low level radiation is healthy. It's like having an entire article about quoting someone who doesn't believe in climate change and then not pointing out that 99% of the world's scientists who study climate disagree.
Drives me crazy when the media does this. Don't they feel any obligation not to mislead the public?
I absolutely, absolutely
I absolutely, absolutely acknowledge your point and feelings. Your voice has been heard! I just hope that this Mr. Luckey does not rise up with the Peter principle to achieve his greatest level of incompetence with a position of power, impacting the rest of us....
Well, let's offer Mr. Luckey
Well, let's offer Mr. Luckey a one way ticket to Fukushima, Japan, with accommodations at the Fukushima nuclear power plant Hilton. He should enjoy such a glowing, irradiating once in a life time experience!
Ha ha ha...yes! And I have
Ha ha ha...yes!
And I have many acres of land I would like to sell him just outside the area of Fukushima where he can live a long and happy glowing life!
this guy has obviously never
this guy has obviously never heard of endocrine disruptors (often more potent toxic effects at low doses) or looked at any pesticide research, where you can get different harmful effects at different doses, and sometimes see an effect at a lower dose and not at a higher. You can't just assume/hope that low doses are going to have a good effect on everybody, or people in general, whatever the toxic substance, whatever the person and their susceptibility. This is not science, it is wishful thinking. He needs to look at each radioisotope individually and cite studies on each in order to make his argument.
May 31 article
"Consumers feel as if there is something they should avoid," said Nicholas Dainiak, chairman of the department of medicine at Bridgeport Hospital, who has spent decades researching the effects of radiation on humans and the environment. "It's all a myth. It's make-believe."
http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/Some-still-concerned-about-radiati...
Mr luckey and his studies
http://www.radscihealth.org/rsh/docs/byAuthor/Luckey.htm
"Introduction: My purpose is to promote harmony with nature and to improve our quality of life with the knowledge that cancer mortality rates decrease following exposure to low dose irradiation. Hormesis (Greek HORMO = I excite) is the stimulation of any system by low doses of any agent. Hormology is the study of excitation. Low doses of many agents evoke a biopositive effect ; large doses produce a bionegative effect. The message is simple: small and large doses induce opposite physiologic results.
Radiobiology data shows that biological functions are stimulated at low doses of ionizing radiation, while high doses result in detrimental effects. This results in improved health, and successful treatment of medical conditions, by low to moderate radiation doses, as shown in numerous studies, in both animal experiments and human epidemiological studies.
Radiobiology Deceptions Reject Health, 2000, by T. D. Luckey, Ph.D., Prof. Emeritus, U. Missouri-Columbia School of Medicine. Presented at ICONE 8, 8th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, April 2-6, 2000, Baltimore, MD USA. tdl108@sunflower.com [ PDF 146KB ]
Confused yet
Cell phones are low dose ionizing radiation as well but it's looking like cell phones increase the risk of brain cancer even the who( world health organization)has issued a warning on this .exerpt from la times article below.
"This is a major scientific consensus conference that has basically implicated cellphone radiation with increased tumor risk, " said Joel M. Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley's School of Public Health and a longtime advocate of more research on the potential cellphone-cancer link. "I think they are particularly concerned about cellphones just because of the widespread utilization. It's not like it's some esoteric chemical used by industry that they think may be carcinogenic. Everyone is exposed to cellphones." jun 1 article
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-who-cell-phones-20110601-1,0,3926296...
Correction
Cell phones emit Non ionizing radiation here is a little on the differences in non ionizing vs ionizing radiation.
Examples of non-ionizing radiation include infrared, microwaves, and light along the visible spectrum. Just because it does not strip electrons from atoms does not mean non-ionizing radiation is harmless. It is still capable of exciting atoms and in turn heating them up. This is the theory behind microwave ovens, and human biological tissue is not fundamentally exempt from this effect. Exposure to types of non-ionizing radiation whose wavelengths are smaller than the body can lead to dangerous burns. This is why exposure to the sun's rays causes the skin to cook and eventually burn.
Though it does not generate heat, ionizing radiation is even more dangerous than non-ionizing to living tissue. By fundamentally changing the chemical makeup of an atom, this kind of radiation can cause molecular damage and the unchecked cellular growth known as cancer. If exposed to human reproductive organs, ionizing radiation can also lead to future birth defects in unborn children.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-ionizing-and-non-...
Awesome news!
Awesome news!
My new T-shirt
"We live with chronic radiation deficiency"
I'm going to make T-shirts with that quote
Cure for radiation
Cure for radiation deficit:
Neutrino beam factories
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rc37dRCI4w
See
No need to fear 100 Msv a year is optimal must be preparing the Japanese I suppose. brainwash ,brainwash ,brainwash yes I believe nuclear radiation is good for us really I do.it's better than good its beneficial ...
We really should be mailing
We really should be mailing checks to TEPCO for involuntarily "medicating" us with radiation.Thanks, TEPCO. Welcome to bizzaro world.
And this is for their
And this is for their teeth:
A truck full of garbage on the streets of Abidjan. Much of Trafigura's toxic waste was dumped in large open areas in the poor suburbs of the city.
That's what I'm talking
That's what I'm talking about!!