It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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...
originally posted by: buddha
All the animal at the Russian reactor site that went bang are doing well.
it is lush and green. not like they tell us!
and show in films.
and the post about the man who says he swam in the rad pool?
originally posted by: UltraMind
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"
SO that means higher radiation = lower cancer deaths
However the Wiki page for Radiation Hormesis also has refutation studies and comments:
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.