High doses of radiation kill cells. Low doses of radiation causes DNA damage in cells that survive and can give rise to cancer. The dose-response relationship for cancer risk is supra-linear.
"...Radiation's principal effect is on the defenses. Low radiation doses/levels stimulate all the defenses reducing the incidence of cancer. High doses/levels have the opposite effect ... there is a small chance that a cancer may develop due to DNA altered by a near-lethal dose of radiation..."
Wade Allison, professor of radiation health physics, points out that radiation treatments of tumors and post-surgical follow-up radiation treatments irradiate large amounts of healthy tissue (organs too) at 200 rad each day for 4 weeks. That amounts to 200 x 5 x 4 = 4000rad [40Sv] in a month. [23,000X Fukushima district maximum allowed]. There are many cells in this healthy tissue (10^9 per gram), and Allison says that these tissues recover. These irradiated areas do not become cancer ridden..."
"...Radiation-induced: 10-100 DNA alterations per cell/cGy 1 mGy/year radiation [=1mSv/yr = max allowed nuclear power plant radiation leakage by authorities] 6 million times lower than spontaneous rate!!!
So radiation is not a significant cause of cancer. We've known this for more than 20 years!.."
"..Low radiation dose/dose-rate reduces cancer incidence because it stimulates:
-- prevention of DNA damage
-- repair of DNA damage
-- removal of damaged cells and removal of cancer cells
High radiation dose/level has opposite effects.."
“It is important to understand that the risk to health from radiation from Fukushima is negligible, and that undue concern over any possible health effects could be much worse than the radiation itself.”
–Gerry Thomas, Imperial College, London, in Fear and Fukushima.
Professor Bernie Cohen offered to eat an ounce of Plutonium if Ralph Nader would eat an ounce of caffeine. That sent Nader running with his tale between his legs. This fellow, Albert Stevens died of cardiorespiratory failure at the age of 79, 20 yrs after getting a MASSIVE dose of plutonium.
"... known as patient CAL-1, was the victim of an unethical human radiation experiment, and survived the highest known accumulated radiation dose in any human.[1] On May 14, 1945, he was injected with 131 kBq (3.55 µCi) of plutonium without his knowledge or informed consent.[2]
Plutonium remained present in his body for the remainder of his life, the amount decaying slowly through radioactive decay and biological elimination. Stevens died of heart disease some 20 years later, having accumulated an effective radiation dose of 64 Sv (6400 rem) over that period. The current annual permitted dose for a radiation worker in the United States is 0.05 Sv (or 5 rem)...."
I'm afraid you are misinterpreting the data. It's true that in the lab at relatively low cellular doses, we see a region of hypersensitivity with elevated cell mortality. The cell triggers its own death. At higher doses, enzymes are activated which initiate a series of repair processes. This makes sense at the organism level. This scheme avoids an unnecessary and possibly erroneous repair when cell damage rate is so low the cell can be sacrificed. But if the damage rate is high enough that the loss of a cell would cause its own problems, then the repair process are initiated.
You misunderstand the problem. Cell mortality is what we want when we use radiation to cure cancer. Unrepaired DNA damage in a cell that survive is what causes cancer. Activation of a repair system occurs and is protective during chronic exposure. This is not a dose-response relationship. One of the main cause of this misunderstanding is to refer to the total dose when the biological effect is mainly caused by the dose rate. https://youtu.be/9CMKr0eP5wo
The people you quote make no difference between dose and dose rate as if you were comparing one year of moderate light exposure (stimulating melanin production) to a sunburn.
The 1st step would be to get the support of the current anti-LNTers. Presently they try to attack
LNT by offering a threshold or hormesis as THE alternative. This is generally done in a single time frame, acute dose framework. This has proven an abject failure since it focuses the debate on the validity/applicability of a threshold or hormesis and away from LNT's farcical denial of the time dimension. Until the anit-LNTers unite behind an SNT-like replacement, nothing will happen, If they do, then we can begin to go after the establishment.
High doses of radiation kill cells. Low doses of radiation causes DNA damage in cells that survive and can give rise to cancer. The dose-response relationship for cancer risk is supra-linear.
https://danielcorcos.substack.com/p/bca
"...Radiation's principal effect is on the defenses. Low radiation doses/levels stimulate all the defenses reducing the incidence of cancer. High doses/levels have the opposite effect ... there is a small chance that a cancer may develop due to DNA altered by a near-lethal dose of radiation..."
Wade Allison, professor of radiation health physics, points out that radiation treatments of tumors and post-surgical follow-up radiation treatments irradiate large amounts of healthy tissue (organs too) at 200 rad each day for 4 weeks. That amounts to 200 x 5 x 4 = 4000rad [40Sv] in a month. [23,000X Fukushima district maximum allowed]. There are many cells in this healthy tissue (10^9 per gram), and Allison says that these tissues recover. These irradiated areas do not become cancer ridden..."
"...Radiation-induced: 10-100 DNA alterations per cell/cGy 1 mGy/year radiation [=1mSv/yr = max allowed nuclear power plant radiation leakage by authorities] 6 million times lower than spontaneous rate!!!
So radiation is not a significant cause of cancer. We've known this for more than 20 years!.."
"..Low radiation dose/dose-rate reduces cancer incidence because it stimulates:
-- prevention of DNA damage
-- repair of DNA damage
-- removal of damaged cells and removal of cancer cells
High radiation dose/level has opposite effects.."
“It is important to understand that the risk to health from radiation from Fukushima is negligible, and that undue concern over any possible health effects could be much worse than the radiation itself.”
–Gerry Thomas, Imperial College, London, in Fear and Fukushima.
Professor Bernie Cohen offered to eat an ounce of Plutonium if Ralph Nader would eat an ounce of caffeine. That sent Nader running with his tale between his legs. This fellow, Albert Stevens died of cardiorespiratory failure at the age of 79, 20 yrs after getting a MASSIVE dose of plutonium.
"... known as patient CAL-1, was the victim of an unethical human radiation experiment, and survived the highest known accumulated radiation dose in any human.[1] On May 14, 1945, he was injected with 131 kBq (3.55 µCi) of plutonium without his knowledge or informed consent.[2]
Plutonium remained present in his body for the remainder of his life, the amount decaying slowly through radioactive decay and biological elimination. Stevens died of heart disease some 20 years later, having accumulated an effective radiation dose of 64 Sv (6400 rem) over that period. The current annual permitted dose for a radiation worker in the United States is 0.05 Sv (or 5 rem)...."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stevens
http://nucleardata.nuclear.lu.se/toi/nuclide.asp?iZA=940239
Daniel,
I'm afraid you are misinterpreting the data. It's true that in the lab at relatively low cellular doses, we see a region of hypersensitivity with elevated cell mortality. The cell triggers its own death. At higher doses, enzymes are activated which initiate a series of repair processes. This makes sense at the organism level. This scheme avoids an unnecessary and possibly erroneous repair when cell damage rate is so low the cell can be sacrificed. But if the damage rate is high enough that the loss of a cell would cause its own problems, then the repair process are initiated.
You misunderstand the problem. Cell mortality is what we want when we use radiation to cure cancer. Unrepaired DNA damage in a cell that survive is what causes cancer. Activation of a repair system occurs and is protective during chronic exposure. This is not a dose-response relationship. One of the main cause of this misunderstanding is to refer to the total dose when the biological effect is mainly caused by the dose rate. https://youtu.be/9CMKr0eP5wo
Radiation (from radiological exams) is the main cause of cancers.
https://youtu.be/9CMKr0eP5wo
The people you quote make no difference between dose and dose rate as if you were comparing one year of moderate light exposure (stimulating melanin production) to a sunburn.
Jack, how would you go about getting SNT into policy? This would have to be adopted at WHO, EPA, and NRC?
Lorenzo,
The 1st step would be to get the support of the current anti-LNTers. Presently they try to attack
LNT by offering a threshold or hormesis as THE alternative. This is generally done in a single time frame, acute dose framework. This has proven an abject failure since it focuses the debate on the validity/applicability of a threshold or hormesis and away from LNT's farcical denial of the time dimension. Until the anit-LNTers unite behind an SNT-like replacement, nothing will happen, If they do, then we can begin to go after the establishment.
Understanding the History of LNT. The 1946 Nobel award, etc. and how the regulation is based on fraudulent research is why another system of radiation regulations is needed. https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6NnKVWzqVW8&data=05%7C01%7Cedwardc%40schoolph.umass.edu%7C22339c389da04f456ba908db2a5f40a3%7C7bd08b0b33954dc194bbd0b2e56a497f%7C0%7C0%7C638150360834476334%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gMN5A4iOP97vzxItZgWIpXnU2BF0GfYy%2FH4Km7oNQ%2BQ%3D&reserved=0