Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!

Poll

What do you think about Radiation Hormesis? (Info about it below)

Yes, I believe in it.
10 (66.7%)
Sounds plausible.
4 (26.7%)
Hmm... I'm kind of torn / I really don't care.
1 (6.7%)
Doesn't sound plausible.
0 (0%)
It is stupid.
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 12

Author Topic: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!  (Read 8502 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tokarev

  • Guest
Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« on: Dec 15, 2016, 09:12 »
Radiation Hormesis is the idea that low doses of radiation are not only safe, but good for you.  (That's Hormesis in a nutshell, a little is good, too much is bad.)  It is a fact in chemistry, but it is controversial in the nuclear world. 
But it can go further.  There is evidence that low doses of radiation are necessary for survival; tests in Switzerland ensured plants and animals received no radiation, and they all become weak and/or died.  (I can't find the research papers on it,  >:( )


Well, here is the tangible evidence:


My favorite
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477686/


Nuclear Energy and Health: And the Benefits of Low-Dose Radiation Hormesis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2664640/

Historical use
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2889502/


I've always wanted to ask nuke workers what they thought of it; now I can!


Thank you all so much.
« Last Edit: Dec 15, 2016, 09:18 by Tokarev »

Tokarev

  • Guest
Re: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« Reply #1 on: Dec 15, 2016, 09:13 »
This is my last inquiry. 
« Last Edit: Dec 15, 2016, 09:16 by Tokarev »

Offline Bonds 25

  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
  • Total likes: 78
  • Karma: 148
  • Gender: Male
  • HP Tech......Well Thats My Title Anyways.
Re: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« Reply #2 on: Dec 15, 2016, 12:42 »
Certainly more legit than the Linear No Threshold Model BS.
"But I Dont Wanna Be A Pirate" - Jerry Seinfeld

Offline SloGlo

  • meter reader
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 5749
  • Total likes: 185
  • Karma: 2641
  • Gender: Male
  • trust me, i'm an hp
Re: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« Reply #3 on: Dec 15, 2016, 01:25 »
aye wood think enny self respecting evolutionist kneads hormesis inn his argument array.
quando omni flunkus moritati

dubble eye, dubble yew, dubble aye!

dew the best ya kin, wit watt ya have, ware yinze are!

Offline Marlin

  • Forum Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 13111
  • Total likes: 534
  • Karma: 5129
  • Gender: Male
  • Stop Global Whining!!!
Re: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« Reply #4 on: Dec 15, 2016, 02:04 »
aye wood think enny self respecting evolutionist kneads hormesis inn his argument array.

   Since unhealthy cells are more affected by ionizing radiation than healthy cells is that why we don't really have any zombies.
  :trollbash:
    Since there is less background radiation exposure to submarine sailors on patrol can we sue for lack of homeopathic healthy radiation?
 [navy sub]


   Is it healthier to live in the mile high city Denver than Los Angeles from a perspective of radiation exposure, hard to tell after smog and gang violence.
 [catfight]


   On the serious side there has been evidence of radiation hormesis since the atomic bombs in Japan where there was a "Fairy Ring" of healthier people found in the studies of the populations affected by the bombs. This argument has had a hard road to hoe with the prevalent anti-nuclear attitude that has begun to reverse itself with the fear of climate change in environmental circles.


 [coffee]

Tokarev

  • Guest
Re: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« Reply #5 on: Dec 15, 2016, 02:07 »
aye wood think enny self respecting evolutionist kneads hormesis inn his argument array.

It work for creationists too, as well as evolutionists.  I can't believe nuke people do not talk about it more.  If they taught people about it and spread the idea, it would reduce mass radiophobia, and ultimately keep you guys in a job.  (People will hate nuclear facilities less, and therefore keep them open.)


Scientists are saying we have so much cancer today because we don't get enough radiation; which Mr. Marlin just said:

"unhealthy cells are more affected by ionizing radiation than healthy cells..."

« Last Edit: Dec 15, 2016, 02:59 by Marlin »

Offline Bonds 25

  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
  • Total likes: 78
  • Karma: 148
  • Gender: Male
  • HP Tech......Well Thats My Title Anyways.
Re: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« Reply #6 on: Dec 15, 2016, 02:14 »
Hormesis wont change the fact Nuclear fission was first used to blow up a couple cities rather than power the lights of a couple cities.
"But I Dont Wanna Be A Pirate" - Jerry Seinfeld

Tokarev

  • Guest
Re: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« Reply #7 on: Dec 15, 2016, 02:42 »
Dr. Muller was one of the first to try to convince people radiation is always dangerous.  He invented the LNT model.  Before that, people liked radiation a little too much (Radithor, for example).  They figured out it can be bad for you, and they went from one extreme to another.  We need to get back to that correct medium.  (That is like a philosophical Hormesis; either extreme is bad.)

People are not afraid of radiation just because of the atomic bomb; there is more to it.  It involves nearly a century of uninformed decisions and lies.
« Last Edit: Dec 15, 2016, 02:44 by Tokarev »

Offline Bonds 25

  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
  • Total likes: 78
  • Karma: 148
  • Gender: Male
  • HP Tech......Well Thats My Title Anyways.
Re: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« Reply #8 on: Dec 15, 2016, 03:03 »
People are afraid of Nuclear Power because of Nuclear Weapons......radiophobia is just icing on the cake.
"But I Dont Wanna Be A Pirate" - Jerry Seinfeld

Offline Marlin

  • Forum Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 13111
  • Total likes: 534
  • Karma: 5129
  • Gender: Male
  • Stop Global Whining!!!
Re: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« Reply #9 on: Dec 15, 2016, 03:15 »
People are not afraid of radiation just because of the atomic bomb; there is more to it.  It involves nearly a century of uninformed decisions and lies.

   With the exception of Spiderman and the Fantastic Four media/Hollywood has presented radiation as the bogey man. Commercial nuclear power carries some fault in this as they tended to settle absurd law suits in the 60's and 70's to avoid publicity rather use them as an opportunity to teach. For example a woman stung by a bee near a nuclear plant claimed damage because she was stung by an ionized bee, as absurd as it sounds the utility settled rather than let it get publicity. to the original point the effects from the atomic bombs were the primary source of radiation health effects so I agree with Bonds 25 it does come from the atomic weapons until recently.

Tokarev

  • Guest
Re: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« Reply #10 on: Dec 15, 2016, 03:15 »
People are afraid of Nuclear Power because of Nuclear Weapons......radiophobia is just icing on the cake.


True... very true.


People do not understand that nuke plants are incapable of nuclear explosion.  (Just steam explosion, and that is rare [thank goodness].)
« Last Edit: Dec 15, 2016, 03:16 by Tokarev »

Tokarev

  • Guest
Re: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« Reply #11 on: Dec 15, 2016, 04:04 »
Well everyone, I would like to thank you all for all you have done.  I am going to only read from now on, but I'll be baaaaaack... in about 4 years when I have my Biology B.S, and working at a plant.

Once again, thank you all, and have a good one!

Tokarev

Offline GLW

Re: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« Reply #12 on: Dec 15, 2016, 04:29 »
....... This argument has had a hard road to hoe with the prevalent anti-nuclear attitude that has begun to reverse itself with the fear of climate change in environmental circles......

Fear is an easy sell,...


been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

Offline SloGlo

  • meter reader
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 5749
  • Total likes: 185
  • Karma: 2641
  • Gender: Male
  • trust me, i'm an hp
Re: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« Reply #13 on: Dec 15, 2016, 04:35 »
hormesis n pimpieces...
luv those meeses too peaces.
quando omni flunkus moritati

dubble eye, dubble yew, dubble aye!

dew the best ya kin, wit watt ya have, ware yinze are!

atomicarcheologist

  • Guest
Re: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« Reply #14 on: Dec 16, 2016, 04:40 »
Most people can't spell hormesis, let alone discuss the benefits. Most people don't know anything about nuclear bombs, fission, fusion, or  the stuff emanating from a cooling tower. They rely on knowledgeable people, professionals, to tell them the facts. Alas, that has been lacking in their lives their whole life, from elementary school science classes through to the news they receive as adults.
« Last Edit: Dec 18, 2016, 10:13 by Atomic Archeologist »

Offline Mounder

  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
  • Total likes: 36
  • Karma: 15
  • Gender: Male
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« Reply #15 on: Dec 17, 2016, 02:15 »
I'd say EMF hazards are equally misguided as the ionizing topics noted above.

Offline thenukeman

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1939
  • Total likes: 1
  • Karma: 1964
  • Elements Rule Battle , Elementis Regamus Proleium
Re: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« Reply #16 on: Dec 20, 2016, 05:23 »
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477686/   The good and bad of Hormesis.  I believe  mostly in the good.  THE GOOD

Over 3,000 scientific research papers show that low dose irradiation is stimulatory and/or beneficial in a wide variety of microbes, plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates (Luckey, 1980a, 1991, Muckerheide, 2001). Using the parameters of cancer mortality rates or mean lifespan in humans, no scientifically acceptable study was found which showed that less than 10 cGy was harmful. Radiation, Science, and Health, Inc. (Box 843, Needham, MA 02494) offers $1,000 for one report in English with scientifically acceptable evidence of harm (increased cancer death rate or decreased average lifespan) from low dose irradiation in normal (not immune deficient) humans or laboratory animals. This is opposed by several thousand studies which produced confirmed and definitive evidence of stimulation and/or benefit. 
The Bad is actually it is not promoted enough do to basically the poor press radiation gets.  THE BAD

The bad is the promulgation of a false concept by many radiobiologists: all radiation is harmful. Brucer noted Health Physics had become a religious cult: “In 1979 the National Committee for Radiation Protection (NCRP) … dropped all pretense at science and assumed there was a risk in every radiation exposure.” (Brucer, 1990). In their attempt to obtain research money, geneticists predicted that genetic monsters (found in fruit flies subjected to large doses of radiation) would occur in people exposed to radiation from atom bombs. When geneticists chanted “all radiation is harmful” and “genetic monsters”, financial support for research on the effects of low dose irradiation vanished. Suddenly, editors were not interested in papers showing stimulatory or beneficial effects from low doses of ionizing radiation. Although no genetic monsters can be attributed to low dose irradiation, including atomic bombs, laws are based upon the false dogma that all radiation is harmful. “This is the greatest hoax of the twentieth century.” (Jaworowski, 1994).

The bad was the retreat to 19th century therapy, surgery, for patients with gangrene when bacteria became resistant to antibiotics about 30 years ago. Surgery is traumatic and the death rate from gangrene in diabetics remains high. “We have found only one really efficient means of prevention and treatment (of gas gangrene), and that is X-ray therapy without amputation, chemotherapy, or serum.” (Kelly and Dowell, 1942). Kelly and Dowell summarized 97 case histories of patients with gas gangrene and other infections: “One cannot fail to observe …. favorable changes in the clinical signs if one treats a few patients with such diseases after they appear to be too seriously ill to be moved from bed for any purpose.” Their conclusion was that neither chemotherapy nor serum was comparable with, nor compatible with, X ray treatment.


Offline GLW

Re: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« Reply #17 on: Dec 20, 2016, 08:11 »
The good and bad of Hormesis.  I believe  mostly in the good.....

1st - oh my goodness!!!!!,... you still live and breathe!!!!! it has been a very long time,....or so it seems,....

2nd -

........ “This is the greatest hoax of the twentieth century.” (Jaworowski, 1994).....

nope, the greatest hoax came out of the IPPC SAR circa 1995,... :P ;) :) 8)

Jaworowski can be forgiven for his absolutism,...
the IPPC FAR (1990) was a reasonable assessment lacking ubiquitous, grant hustling, hysteria,.... [Flamer]

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

Offline RDTroja

  • Site Heretic
  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3942
  • Total likes: 163
  • Karma: 4553
  • Gender: Male
  • I knew I got into IT for a reason!
Re: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« Reply #18 on: Dec 20, 2016, 11:45 »
Funny, I distinctly remember being ridiculed by some evilmaN for stating the belief that Radiation Hormesis was quite likely true several years ago in these pages.
"I won't eat anything that has intelligent life, but I'd gladly eat a network executive or a politician."

                                  -Marty Feldman

"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to understand that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
                                  -Ronald Reagan

I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it.

                                  - Voltaire

Offline GLW

Re: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« Reply #19 on: Dec 21, 2016, 12:52 »
Funny, I distinctly remember being ridiculed by some evilmaN for stating the belief that Radiation Hormesis was quite likely true several years ago in these pages.

well yeah but people change,...

now he's got stock market options and enjoys the trappings of comfortable , American, upper middle class excess,...

complete with tax returns where he claims his charitable contributions against his income, like a true capitalist,....

quite the turnaround for an avowed, once upon a time, wobbly,..... :P :) ;) 8)

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

atomicarcheologist

  • Guest
Re: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« Reply #20 on: Dec 21, 2016, 08:58 »
Which naturally occurring radiation would be considered better for hormesis consideration; solar or terra based?

Offline Marlin

  • Forum Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 13111
  • Total likes: 534
  • Karma: 5129
  • Gender: Male
  • Stop Global Whining!!!
Re: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« Reply #21 on: Dec 21, 2016, 09:16 »
Which naturally occurring radiation would be considered better for hormesis consideration; solar or terra based?

Boy that would be hard to quantify but there are Radon Spas still open advocating the positive benefits of radiation. On the other hand John Glenn lived to 95 above the national average. Could there be a future for health related space vacations, spend two weeks in the beautiful Van Allen belts see bright flashes in you eyes.


 8)


atomicarcheologist

  • Guest
Re: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« Reply #22 on: Dec 21, 2016, 02:14 »
Using some paper boy math, calculating 10mRem/minute, that seems like a substantial dose for hormesis comparison.
« Last Edit: Dec 21, 2016, 02:15 by Atomic Archeologist »

Offline Marlin

  • Forum Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 13111
  • Total likes: 534
  • Karma: 5129
  • Gender: Male
  • Stop Global Whining!!!
Re: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« Reply #23 on: Dec 21, 2016, 03:20 »
Using some paper boy math, calculating 10mRem/minute, that seems like a substantial dose for hormesis comparison.

   More complicated than that, exposure in the radon spas is primarily alpha to the lungs and the Van Allen belts is whole body and some of it high energy particles > 10 Mev and secondary photons from the interaction of these particles with the ship/suit. The space suits are designed to be a happy medium between stopping lower energy radiation and providing a target that produces more lower energy radiation. Kind of like not using lead on high energy beta emitters as it increases the ionizing exposure by producing bremsstrahlung radiation.

Long boring explanation:

Spaceflight Radiation Health Program at JSC

https://srag.jsc.nasa.gov/Publications/TM104782/techmemo.htm

Short easy answer:

Ask the Astronomer

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2906.html


Spa workers get ~100 mRem/year and patients less so on the surface space may or may not be higher depending on mission. Still less than the 200 mRem/year that flight crews get, but more than the short trips into space of <50 mRem/mission.


Still not enough to determine which is closer to the optimum dose for hormesis. RadCon math needs some baseline and equivalency so I still think it is gray or really fuzzy math.


 ;)   [Dance]







Offline GLW

Re: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« Reply #24 on: Dec 21, 2016, 04:31 »
   More complicated than that, exposure in the radon spas is primarily alpha to the lungs and the Van Allen belts is whole body and some of it high energy particles > 10 Mev and secondary photons from the interaction of these particles with the ship/suit. The space suits are designed to be a happy medium between stopping lower energy radiation and providing a target that produces more lower energy radiation. Kind of like not using lead on high energy beta emitters as it increases the ionizing exposure by producing bremsstrahlung radiation.

Long boring explanation:

Spaceflight Radiation Health Program at JSC

https://srag.jsc.nasa.gov/Publications/TM104782/techmemo.htm

Short easy answer:

Ask the Astronomer

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2906.html


Spa workers get ~100 mRem/year and patients less so on the surface space may or may not be higher depending on mission. Still less than the 200 mRem/year that flight crews get, but more than the short trips into space of <50 mRem/mission.


Still not enough to determine which is closer to the optimum dose for hormesis. RadCon math needs some baseline and equivalency so I still think it is gray or really fuzzy math.


 ;)   [Dance]



remember this on the dark side though:



been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

atomicarcheologist

  • Guest
Re: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« Reply #25 on: Dec 21, 2016, 07:08 »
I used the 50G/yr dose for the Belt. Shielding for vacay in ray array would be calculated for whatever effect desired.
Still seems a bit extreme for hormesis.

Offline SloGlo

  • meter reader
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 5749
  • Total likes: 185
  • Karma: 2641
  • Gender: Male
  • trust me, i'm an hp
Re: Radiation Hormesis... Let's get controversial!
« Reply #26 on: Dec 21, 2016, 10:25 »
it makes cents two build you're home from stones oar concrete stead of would too git the most hormesis bang fore yore dollars n scents.
https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/building.html
« Last Edit: Dec 21, 2016, 10:25 by SloGlo »
quando omni flunkus moritati

dubble eye, dubble yew, dubble aye!

dew the best ya kin, wit watt ya have, ware yinze are!

 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2021 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?