[ RadSafe ] Re: "Science" reports on background radiation and health

[John Jacobus]

Can you cite any epidemiological studies in the
literature that supports the idea that radiation is
the basis for improved health, etc.?

I think that there is a bit of a difference between
saying that low dose, low-dose rates does does not
cause harm vs. it is beneficial at these levels.

--- "Muckerheide, James" <jimm at WPI.EDU> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 9:38 AM
> 
> > And what is the paradox? What is important are
> results
> > of epidemiological studies of the populations. 
> The
> > statement that ". . . appear to be even healthier
> and
> > to live longer than those living in control  areas
> > that are not classified as HBRAs . . ." does not
> sound
> > like a scientific statement to me.  I remember
> years
> 
> Ok. "Epi studies consistently indicate lower cancer
> rates and other diseases,
> and increased longevity."
> 
> > As noted in the BEIR V, BEIR VII, UNSCEAR and
> other
> > reports, biological response from low dose,
> low-dose
> > rates differ from those of high dose rate
> exposures.
> 
> Right.  That's why assuming a linear response is
> invalid.  Looking at the
> actual data vs. their biological functions shows
> that low doses are
> beneficial, i.e., these different biological
> responses enhance immunity and
> many other functions, rather than stimulate
> "emergency repairs"
> (error-prone).
> 
> Regards, Jim Muckerheide
> ========================
> 
> > --- Maury Siskel <maurysis at ev1.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > Many Radsafe readers would find the linked
> article
> > > in Science an
> > > intriguing account. But I agree that when you
> come
> > > to the section about
> > > "The Radiation Paradox", your ears will stand up
> --
> > > Dog's did when I
> > > read it to him. <g>
> > > Cheers,
> > > Maury&Dog
> > >
> > > ====================
> > > Muckerheide, James wrote:
> > >
> > > > Friends,
> > > >
> > > > An essay on 'medical geology' in the current
> > > Science magazine includes
> > > > the following section. The article is at:
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5736/883
> > >
> > > . . .
> > > >
> > > > The most interesting feature in all these
> cases is
> > > that the people
> > > > living in these HBRAs do not appear to suffer
> any
> > > adverse health
> > > > effects as a result of their high exposures to
> > > radiation. On the
> > > > contrary, in some cases the individuals living
> in
> > > these HBRAs appear
> > > > to be even healthier and to live longer than
> those
> > > living in control
> > > > areas that are not classified as HBRAs. These
> > > phenomena pose many
> > > > intriguing questions for medical geologists.
> > > >
> > 
> > 
> > +++++++++++++++++++
> > "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a
> new idea and never
> > shrinks back to its original proportion." --
> Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
> > 
> > -- John
> > John Jacobus, MS
> > Certified Health Physicist
> > e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
> ____________________________________________________
> > Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home
> page
> > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> > 
> 


+++++++++++++++++++
"Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com