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

[Maury Siskel]

No, no John ... what made Dog's and my ears stand up was that the author 
saw it as being a paradox. We thought this epidemiological relationship 
between glacial milk and background radiation was well established and 
already enjoyed wide acceptance. Obviously, the true science here 
resides, as you mentioned, in the glacial milk. I think an important 
adjunct is their proximity to the moon compared with all of us 
lowlanders. The intelligent designer (who lives in the moon) takes very 
kindly to and looks after his nearest neighbors. <g>

Incidentally, I wonder if any research has been done on the effects of 
foreground radiation? And are medical geologists the source of the 
expression "cast in stone' ?

Cheers,
Maury&Dog (maurysis at ev1.net)

John Jacobus wrote:

> <>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 ago where a study showing that people who lived in the
> Caucasus Mountains lived longer because they ate yogart. Actually, it 
> is glacial milk. not background radiation.
>
> See http://www.lifebuildingminerals.com/longevity.htm
>
> 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.
>
>
> --- 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 
>>> includesthe 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.
>>
------------ snipped -----------