[ RadSafe ] "Public Protection - " and hormesis

[howard long]

Lewhelgeson at helge.com looked at Brodsky's Public Protection from Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Terrorism 2004 briefly with me this week and was as surprised as was I to see,
"The risk of dying of cancer for a person exposed at average age is about 5 chances in 10,000 for a total body exposure of 1 rem -" (Biological Effects of Radiation, p760)
Although intended to reassure, that seems to follow LNTand be refuted by Land and McGregor's study of Breast Cancer Incidence Among Atomic Bomb Survivors, where with 1-9 R there were 34 when 42.3 was "expected" in that population!
 
Fear of any cancer increase from 1 rem acute dose ( like a CT scan), must have been extrapolated beyond Brodsky's data. Lew says he is a sharp statistician, so I must conclude that he was politically pressured by the publisher, the Health Physics Society. I wrote him this.
 
I was reassured by adjacent, "Acute effects: No likely serious debilitation effects below 25R"
 
John, everyone would do well not to depend only on government (or doctors) for their safety.
I "mis-spoke" and Todd promptly corrected with "You mean 500urem/hr" (another message).
With Nucalert, palmRAD, Nuclear War Survival Skills, and now the cumbersome pro "Public Protection - ", I or anyone able to drive a car or manage diabetes can be confident of safety with radiation exposure, without the panic that comes from dependency - as with a nanny state.
 
 It helps to know that 10 rad actually reduces cancer (hormesis).  
 
Howard Long
 

John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
Personally, I find your inability to read and relate
radiation exposures and exposure rates to be very
troubling. How can you possible espouse information
about radiation risk and benefits without any real
understanding of the subject? If you were to detect
an increase in radiation for a "dirty" bomb, you would
not even know what to tell the public what the doses
really are!

As usual you cite studies that either do not support
your claims of hormesis, like the NSW study, or are
incomplete, like the Tiawan study. But, again, you
can't even read the equipment you are using.

--- howard long wrote:

> It is 0.5 mrem/hour that I read 1 cm inside my
> part-thorium belt, NOT 500 mrem/hr.
> Note that I made the same error wth ambient "15
> mrem/hr" (1,000x actual)
> My misstatement must have been from mental block of
> the decimal and zeros when reading the palmRAD. That
> error is unlikely when monitoring exposures with an
> all-too-possible dirty bonb.
> 
> Todd, you are correct. The dose I believe would give
> best hormesis is about 1 mrad/hr for 8 hours a day
> for full body radiation to receive about 4 rad/year.
> This is more than the NSworkers received (0.5 rad)
> but much less than the Taiwan apt dwellers.
> 
> Local exposure with the belt I'm trying because U
> ore was not readily available in quantity to put
> under a bed for whole body exposure. So far, the 5
> lb belt is a nuisance I don't expect to be repeated.
> It will take 50 rad locally and repeatedly to
> increase blood supply at inflammation like bursitis
> or gangrene, to give prompt improvement useful for
> LDR treatment
> 
> Publicity of hormesis may reduce panic with public
> exposure. Erroneous current belief is that a little
> radiation increases cancer risk, although the
> opposite is true.
> 
> Howard Long 
> 
> 
> John Jacobus wrote:
> 
> And why would you want to expose the skin to 500
> mrem/hr? How did you measure this dose rate? Is this
> a deep or shallow dose rate? (I am assuming you know
> the difference.)
> 
> You may want to check with some radiation
> oncologists
> about protracted skin damage. My understanding is
> that
> when you get up to about 30 Gy (3000 rad) you start
> to
> see effects like dermal atrophy, etc. 
> 
> --- howard long wrote:
> 
> > DU "Poison Dust" sounds like just what I need for
> my
> > hormesis belt.
> > 
> > To raise my exposure from the ambient 15 mrem/hr,
> > and have the benefits of the Taiwan apt dwellers
> > (Chen, Luan, JAm PsMar 2004), 1/6 the cancer, or
> the
> > nuclear shipyard workers,( 0.76 mortality rate
> when
> > extra 0.5 rem), I've been wearing a 5 lb belt of
> > used welding rods, 2% thorium. I can get up to 500
> > mrem/h on about 500scm of skin that way.
> > 
> > Who knows the typical radiation of DU on contact
> and
> > at, say 10 cm?
> > 
> > Howard Long