Radiation is good for you?

Ok so over multiple posts I have seen the criticism of what was reported in the New York Times a while ago - namely the alleged fact that higher background radiation may reduce the incidence of certain cancers. Unfortunately on the threads I have read there seems to be little argument on why this might actually be true, it all seems to be 'yeah right sure it does'.

So I have started to have a little poke around regarding what evidence may be out there. Pretty quickly I hit this:
"Natural Background Radiation and Cancer Death in Rocky Mountain States and Gulf Coast States.
Calculations based on data from NCRP reports show that the average level of natural background radiation (NBR) in Rocky Mountain states is 3.2 times that in Gulf Coast states. However, data from the American Cancer Society show that age-adjusted overall cancer death in Gulf Coast states is actually 1.26 times higher than in Rocky Mountain states
(C)1998Health Physics Society"
LINK

SO that means higher radiation = lower cancer deaths

However the Wiki page for Radiation Hormesis also has refutation studies and comments:
Wiki

I have to say that I tend towards the hormesis argument. I can liken it to the fact that when you start to starve a human the internal repair rates increase (until the bodies resources are depleted). It appears that if exposed to slightly higher radiation the body reacts and starts to repair any cell damage but effectively over compensates.

Does this mean we should all start irradiating ourselves? Well no obviously, I think that there is sufficient emphasis that applying statistical analysis like this to individuals would be erroneous. After all you (or I) may be that 1/1000 that is especially susceptible, or other environmental factors cause noise in the results.

There's a brilliant example of this noise: It was found that in one area with radioactive radon gas that cancer rates were lower, however it was also noticed that it was relatively poor area with lots of high rise buildings. Hence a greater proportion of the population did not live at ground level where the gas accumulates.

But we must be careful, the disproving of one study does not disprove them all.

I just wish people would not be so quick to utterly write off this subject.

I thank you for your time.

Yea hormesis has always intuitively made good sense to me. Most evidence I've come across over the years validates the theory. I think academia is slow to accept this and it'll be another decade or so before the stubborn minds indoctrinated in linear no threshold model come around.

One thing to remember is the bodily adaptations as up regulations in repair mechanisms don't happen instantaneously so any acute and significant increase in radiation will still affect the body negatively. The other question is to what extent the body can compensate. Is it 5x background, 7x, 10x? It seems we don't have that data yet, and I'm certain individual variability exists as well.

It depends on the type of radiation and the amount you are exposed to.

Simply saying it is bad or good is a blanket statement and neither would be true for all cases.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I don't think the type of radiation matters.

a reply to: UltraMind

Naturally occurring radiation is one possible source of evolutionary mutation. This is discussed by scientists and there is plenty of supporting evidence for such a theory.

Different geological locations mean different levels of exposure. Add to that sun flares then we have a natural force that might actually be the agent responsible for genetic mutation that has led to the diversity of life over all these millions of years.

However, I don't think I'll add a spoonful to the Nutribullet recipes for my morning health fix.

I expect that groups of humans who lived in areas of naturally occurring radioactive metals or where radon is present, etc, might well have had too much exposure and suffered ill effects.

Mutation its all about mutation the people of tommorrow will be much different than the people of today and the people of the past say 2000 years ago were much different than we are now, some call it evolution/devolution while others call it mutation. Silll some call nutatiion cancer, because cancer is when a mutation becomes life thretening and nothing more than that.

We all have some form of cancer or we are all mutating, and yes radiation and our toxic environment has alot to do with it.

The big question is how will we mutate?
Can it be controlled ?
Will we be a better people in the future or will we be worse?

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, 1000 of nuclear test bombs, Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island, lost nuclear bombs, Nuclear power plants and it's nuclear waste, back ground radiation, Roentgen photo .

We should all be dead by now, or...

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Grimpachi

I don't think the type of radiation matters.

Of course it does. Gamma radiation in a single large dose turns your skin green and gives you super strength. Alpha radiation alters arachnid venom. Cosmic radiation gives you elemental powers.

Most people hear the word radiation and they run around like little girls that see a spider.

Some Taiwanese apartments were build with iron that had a few "extras" in the form of a big ol' pile of Cobalt-60 mixed in.

So the residents got an around-the-clock dose of radiation that was a lot more than you ought to.

The cancer rates were mere fractions of the rates of similar cohorts in Taiwan.

Well I think we need some volunteers perhaps lab mice just toss them in a high radioactive environment and see how they make it.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

The Taiwanese thoughtfully supplied us some human ones...

linky!

The conventional approach for radiation protection is based on the ICRP's linear, no threshold (LNT) model of radiation carcinogenesis, which implies that ionizing radiation is always harmful, no matter how small the dose. But a different approach can be derived from the observed health effects of the serendipitous contamination of 1700 apartments in Taiwan with cobalt-60 (T1/2 = 5.3 y). This experience indicates that chronic exposure of the whole body to low-dose-rate radiation, even accumulated to a high annual dose, may be beneficial to human health. Approximately 10,000 people occupied these buildings and received an average radiation dose of 0.4 Sv, unknowingly, during a 9–20 year period. They did not suffer a higher incidence of cancer mortality, as the LNT theory would predict. On the contrary, the incidence of cancer deaths in this population was greatly reduced—to about 3 per cent of the incidence of spontaneous cancer death in the general Taiwan public. In addition, the incidence of congenital malformations was also reduced—to about 7 per cent of the incidence in the general public.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Wow! I wonder how they managed to so quickly raise up a crowd here to proclaim the pro side of radiation?
Sounds like a conspiracy. Reminds me of the half a century of the government's argument over UFOs and the shills for that agenda.

a reply to: Aliensun

Well we've got this thing called evidence on our side. It helps.

originally posted by: Mianeye
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, 1000 of nuclear test bombs, Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island, lost nuclear bombs, Nuclear power plants and it's nuclear waste, back ground radiation, Roentgen photo .

We should all be dead by now, or...

Or seeing rapidly increasing cancer rates (estimated to increase 70% by 2030).

This hormesis BS is the worst form of shilling. Worse than the cigarette makers shilling. Possibly even worse than Monsanto's GMO and pesticides are ok shilling. This stuff KILLS and is deadly, not just for generations, but for MILLIONS of years and these evil trolls know it. But higher acceptable levels of radiation means much lower cleanup costs in the event of a leak or meltdown, and much lower operating cost. So nuclear plants will get to cut their plant safety budgets even as you are exposed to higher doses of radiation. Why any person would gamble their own life tolerating this so some plant operators can pocket money at the expense of your safety is beyond me.

And no your body does not become immune to radiation. Even low level exposure causes chronic inflammation which itself can cause a host of diseases including heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. Internal exposure significantly increases damage and health consequences.

Long term exposure to moderate levels of radiation is usually not good. It also depends what the radiation is tied to. Radiation may kill cancer, but it accumulates in the thyroid and can kill off your thyroid. Taking Iodine supplements to protect our thyroid is needed when there is a lot of radiation. Without a thyroid you would need to take medications on a regular basis.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Long term exposure to moderate levels of radiation is usually not good. It also depends what the radiation is tied to. Radiation may kill cancer, but it accumulates in the thyroid and can kill off your thyroid. Taking Iodine supplements to protect our thyroid is needed when there is a lot of radiation. Without a thyroid you would need to take medications on a regular basis.

Actually, no. You dose up on iodine to protect your thyroid from absorbing as much radioactive iodine in the event you're exposed to fallout.

Doesn't do beans for protection from radiation.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Grimpachi

I don't think the type of radiation matters.

Sunlight is radiation and their are many types that are completely harmless to humans even healthy in small doses.

So the type and duration matters.

Radiation hormesis is the hypothesis that low doses of ionizing radiation (within the region of and just above natural background levels) are beneficial, stimulating the activation of repair mechanisms that protect against disease, that are not activated in absence of ionizing radiation.

a reply to: Bedlam
The Russians used fruit pectin to bind the radioactivity of the food after their little nuclear accident so it wasn't absorbed into the body from the tainted food. So there is a good reason to eat homemade Jam.

I read some research on that subject, having some pectin around is good I suppose. We usually have about five boxes because it goes on sale after we make our yearly strawberry jam so we buy it a season ahead to save money.

I'm not sure how to dose it though, I just know it has some properties that can help.

originally posted by: UltraMind
Calculations based on data from NCRP reports show that the average level of natural background radiation (NBR) in Rocky Mountain states is 3.2 times that in Gulf Coast states. However, data from the American Cancer Society show that age-adjusted overall cancer death in Gulf Coast states is actually 1.26 times higher than in Rocky Mountain states
(C)1998Health Physics Society"

Correlation does not equal causation. What if neither radiation dose from background sources is significant, but instead pollution levels of contaminants in air and water were the driving factors in the difference?

Pollution was terrible in the gulf coast when I lived there, so I'd suspect that long before I jumped to any conclusions about radiation hormesis. On the other hand I'm not convinced by the LNT (Linear no-threshold) model ether as I suspect there's a threshold. I worked with gamma ray and neutron radiation sources when I was younger and had to wear a radiation dosimeter badge to measure my exposure. The extra radiation I got didn't even double background radiation so I was never that worried about it, and my health has been great.