Human Body Might Adapt to Radiation Exposure , page 1

Human Body Might Adapt to Radiation Exposure , page

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times

Topic started on 24-8-2011 @ 05:11 AM by stonebutterfly

Remember folks radiation is GOOD for you!

Doctors who are regularly exposed to X-ray radiation may undergo changes in their cells that protect them from the radiation they encounter, a new study suggests

On average, the interventional cardiologists were exposed to 4 millisievert (mSv) of ionizing radiation per year, those some exposures were as high as 8 mSv. The average person in the United States is exposed to about 3 mSvs per year from natural sources, according to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The interventional cardiologists had higher levels of ROS in the plasma surrounding their blood cells than the other doctors, however, inside their red blood cells, both groups had the about the same levels of ROS.

That means that the cardiologists cells were producing more glutathione, and protecting the cardiologists' cells from seeing their ROS levels spike, Russo told MyHealthNewsDaily

www.myhealthnewsdaily.com...

edit on 24-8-2011 by stonebutterfly because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 24-8-2011 @ 05:21 AM by JesusLives

reply to post by stonebutterfly

Madam Curie must have just been unlucky.

reply posted on 24-8-2011 @ 05:25 AM by Bob Sholtz

cells adapt to radiation like a person's face would adapt with bullet going through it.

humans will never adapt to serious radiation naturally.

edit on 24-8-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 24-8-2011 @ 05:27 AM by JennaDarling

I suggest you confirm this theory by travelling to Japan.

reply posted on 24-8-2011 @ 05:49 AM by ZeroKnowledge

Of course Human body can adapt to subtle changes in the environment ,and Human race can adapt even to moderate ones. Loosing lots of people in the process to painful death.
Yes (some) people can gradually adapt to low levels of radiation. One can also get adapted to poisons by administering low dosages gradually. So? Is this "radiation can be harmless" trend some kind of softening for Fukoshima tragedy results or is it preparation to nuclear war?

reply posted on 24-8-2011 @ 05:53 AM by David291

I suppose one could adapt to small amounts of radiation however, the amount of radiation that has been given out by fuku and other nuclear powerplants would surely not give anyone a chance to adapt.

But who knows, we barely understand ourselves - infact, we definatly dont

reply posted on 24-8-2011 @ 07:21 AM by RenegadeScholar

If scientists gain a greater understanding of how our cells protect themselves from radiation, is it possible they find a way to accelerate this defense mechanism artificially? Interesting.

reply posted on 24-8-2011 @ 09:32 AM by thruthseek3r

reply to post by stonebutterfly

What I do not like here is the use of the word ''might''. A ''might'' is like a could or would. It means the body could but we are not 100% sure. I say this is ridiculous the way they explain, too much speculation over here.

Thruthseek3r

reply posted on 24-8-2011 @ 06:06 PM by stonebutterfly

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge

Exactly what Im thinking...this is preperation. They are trying to spread the lie that radiation is not so bad despite previous evidece showing otherwise.

reply posted on 24-8-2011 @ 06:07 PM by michael1983l

It would make sense, just nature adapting to its surroundings as it always has.

reply posted on 24-8-2011 @ 06:09 PM by stonebutterfly

reply to post by JennaDarling

This is becoming a dangerous "radiation is good for you" trend. I would like to tell the scientists the same, try out your theory in Japan !

reply posted on 24-8-2011 @ 06:14 PM by obummerdeception

Interesting study, I'm sure as hell
glad I did not sign up to be the lab rat on this one!!

reply posted on 25-8-2011 @ 03:31 AM by C0bzz

BEIR 7

Possible stimulatory effects have been reported for radiation exposure, such as mobilization of intracellular calcium (Liu 1994), gene activation (Boothman and others 1993), activation of signal transduction pathways (Liu 1994; Ishii and others 1997), increase in antioxidants such as reduced glutathione (GSH; Kojima and others 1997), increase in lipoperoxide levels (Petcu and others 1997), and increase in circulating lymphocytes (Luckey 1991). The general thesis presented is that stress responses activated by low doses of radiation, particularly those that would increase immunological responses, are more beneficial than any deleterious effects that might result from the low doses of ionizing radiation. Although evidence for stimulatory effects from low doses has been presented, little if any evidence is offered concerning the ultimate deleterious effects that may occur.

www.nap.edu...

Or in other words, the fact low doses of radiation are stimulatory in some respects is very well known and it also does not necessarily mean that low doses of radiation are good for you. Also the hypothesis that low doses of radiation are good for you (Hormesis) is not new at all and there is some evidence for it although the scientific consensus is that the detrimental effects of radiation scale linearly with dose.

Wikipedia has a pretty good page on Hormesis:
en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 25/8/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 25-8-2011 @ 04:18 AM by jimbo999

Originally posted by stonebutterfly
Remember folks radiation is GOOD for you!

Doctors who are regularly exposed to X-ray radiation may undergo changes in their cells that protect them from the radiation they encounter, a new study suggests

On average, the interventional cardiologists were exposed to 4 millisievert (mSv) of ionizing radiation per year, those some exposures were as high as 8 mSv. The average person in the United States is exposed to about 3 mSvs per year from natural sources, according to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The interventional cardiologists had higher levels of ROS in the plasma surrounding their blood cells than the other doctors, however, inside their red blood cells, both groups had the about the same levels of ROS.

That means that the cardiologists cells were producing more glutathione, and protecting the cardiologists' cells from seeing their ROS levels spike, Russo told MyHealthNewsDaily

www.myhealthnewsdaily.com...
edit on 24-8-2011 by stonebutterfly because: (no reason given)

This is of course pure BS!

Go tell all the children dying of cancer in the Chernobyl vicinity just how wonderful radiation really is. I'm sure they might disagree. Radiation is a very painful way to die.

All this cr*p is worrying simply because it sounds suspiciously like some people are trying to sell radiation to the general public. It sounds like the same kind of fictitious pseudo-science the oil and tobacco industry have been selling us for decades...

Scary.

reply posted on 25-8-2011 @ 05:26 AM by dawnstar

well, that's good news for the people of japan, since the atoms bombs of the world war should have made all the survivors adapt, and this small amount of radiation now shoudh't harm them at all!!
Right???

ya, right!!!
I was listening to someone on art bell the other day talking about the current crisis, oh, wait a minute, we aren't supposed to know it's still a crisis, are we??
well, he's claiming that they are gonna start burning the radioactive mess that was left by the tsusami, which will throw all that radiation into the air, and send it towards the US...
advises us to cover our gardens, stock up on food, ect. ect...

umm...maybe I am wrong, but doesn't radiation penetrate just about everything but lead?? so, I buy a ton of canned beans and stash them somewhere in the house, are they really gonna be uncontaminated?? same with water...and cover our garden?? maybe we should dig up our gardens, dirt and all, stash them into lead buildings and install some grow lamps????

ya know, the whole world is in an economic slump like nothing I've seen......and well, most of us ain't buying anything we don't have to.....getting everyone to go out and start stocking up on a lifetime supply of necessities....or wait a minute, the radiation is gonna be around for a hundred or so years, according to this guy, well, let's just make that a couple of lifetimes supply of necessities.....
well, I hope to god this is all just a clever plan to get us all buying again and kickstart our economies, or that they are right and our bodies will "adapt"...i could use an extra arm or two anyways, and well, glow in the dark would really save on electricity!!
it's possible though, that this is just the scientists wishful thinking, because they know just how totally screwed we all are!!!

reply posted on 26-8-2011 @ 05:04 PM by Sinter Klaas

It's true.

People in area's with a higher background radiation, show less cancer victims then area's where background radiation is lower.

The bodies capability to repair and prevent damage on a cellular level seems to be boosted when exposed to a prolonged radiation exposure.

We are talking about small figures here. Any high dose will kill you eventually or pretty darn fast.

The only thing this proves is that life is more resilient to radiation then we first gave it credit for.

That's it...

Any nuclear meltdown will be a certain overdose... Being Save is different.

reply posted on 9-9-2011 @ 03:16 PM by Uphill

reply to post by stonebutterfly

A sample size of 10 doctors and 10 controls is too small to be clinically meaningful; it's just what's called "anecdotal" evidence. This brief study might, however, pave the way for a larger, more statistically and clinically meaningful study in the future. Nowadays, most people are aware that there is some risk to having dental x-rays, chest x-rays, CT scans or mammograms. Risks often cited can range from tissue damage and fertility problems to the big C.

Any meaningful study would have to have a larger sample size, a longer period of time, clarify what parts of the body are exposed to this radiation, the doctors' own health status at the time, what radiation doses were involved, on and on.

One of the best books on the subject of exposure to medical X-rays was written by the physician and atomic energy researcher John Gofman, MD. Here's a bio of him from Amazon:

www.amazon.com...=ntt_at_bio_wiki

And here's his book on the subject of medical X-ray health effects:

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1315598498&sr=1-1

edit on 9/9/2011 by Uphill because: Add a word.

Pages: ^^TOP^^