Re: LNT, SNT, or whatever

[Ted de Castro <tdc@xrayted.com>]

Exactly!  BUT evolution is concerned with the survival of the SPECIES
and NOT the individual.  Thus an IMMORTAL would NOT be the logical
endpoint or goal of evolution!  (or if it is and he already exists -
he's smart enough not to lets us find out!!)

In any event - when you consider survival of the species it is clear
that the longevity of any individual beyond an ability to procreate is
irrelevant to evolution.  AND a species with long life and long
reproductive span would likely reproduce itself out of existence. 
Likewise a species with long life and long reproductive span BUT low
reproductive rate to avoid over population - would survive only until
the first major disaster and then it could not recover.

So - evolution does NOT filter out mortality factors with greater
probabilities on segments of the population beyond reproductive age.  In
fact a late mortality disease might just be an evolutionary plus!

SimplyRdd@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>  I have been reading the various posts about hormeisis and DNA damage, and
> radon damage to the lung and linear no threshold, etc etc etc .and it leads
> me to a rather simple question/thought: We "know" how much natural
> radioactive material there is in the earth, we can back calculate and realize
> that the world of the past was a much more radioactive place than it is now,
> so isn't it reasonable to think that the very impact of radiation is what
> promoted the mutations and hence evolution of the planet's inhabitants, man
> included??We've been living with this stuff forever and it seems to me that
> we are so focused on studying the leaf from one tree in the forest, that  we
> may be missing the big picture.. maybe we are adapted to and by radiation and
> maybe we needed it for evolutionary purposes.... and maybe, based on our
> history with the radioacitve  earth,, just maybe, low chronic doses are
> really ok, our bodies can cope and there really is a threshold..and maybe
> (this is really radical guys so hang on....) the folks who develop cancer (or
> other diseases)  are the ones who would be "de-selected" in an evolutionary
> sense... (and before you jump all over me, alot of us, myself included, are
> alive today because of antibiotics, surgeries, etc)  ... (ps  I know, in  the
> future I shall keep such blasphemous thoughts to myself.)
> regards to all
>       Patty
> 
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html