The "Radioactivity is Good for You" Push

This is interesting and depressing the lengths people will go to make profit in a business that insurers won't touch.....

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering a move to eliminate the “Linear No-Threshold” (LNT) basis of radiation protection that the U.S. has used for decades and replace it with the “radiation hormesis” theory—which holds that low doses of radioactivity are good for people.

www.commondreams.org...

And they are not talking about radiation from evolutionary sources but manmade sources and waste here; so don't start with that argument. We're talking about exposure to persistant artifical sources of radioactivity here. Notice they 'assume' the harm done is by radioactive effects and completely ignore the 'toxic' particulate vector.

The results of this 'policy' change:

The current U.S. requirement that nuclear plant operators reduce exposures to the public to “as low as reasonably achievable” would be “tossed out the window. Emergency planning zones would be significantly reduced or abolished entirely. Instead of being forced to spend money to limit radiation releases, nuclear utilities could pocket greater profits.

How can any 'fragile' human condone the self-destructive insanity of nuclear power and weapons? I suppose the wealthy don't consider themselves 'fragile' and that, my friends, is delusional. They will kill us all.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

And they are not talking about radiation from evolutionary sources but manmade sources and waste here; so don't start with that argument. We're talking about exposure to persistant artifical sources of radioactivity here.

Radiation is radiation. A gamma with a certain energy is exactly the same as any other gamma with that energy. There aren't "natural, organic" alpha particles that are better for you than "evil, artificial" ones.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: FyreByrd

And they are not talking about radiation from evolutionary sources but manmade sources and waste here; so don't start with that argument. We're talking about exposure to persistant artifical sources of radioactivity here.

Radiation is radiation. A gamma with a certain energy is exactly the same as any other gamma with that energy. There aren't "natural, organic" alpha particles that are better for you than "evil, artificial" ones.

Ionizing radiation causes damage to living cells, small amounts do small damage, but damage it is.

But But But ... "Dr. Luckey" says ...

Dr. Luckey further holds: “The trillions of dollars estimated for worldwide nuclear waste management can be reduced to billions to provide safe, low-dose irradiation to improve our health. The direction is obvious; the first step remains to be taken.” And he wrote: “Evidence of health benefits and longer average life-span following low-dose irradiation should replace fear.”

"Dr. Luckey" ???

How ironic a name can be.

originally posted by: Bedlam

Radiation is radiation. A gamma with a certain energy is exactly the same as any other gamma with that energy. There aren't "natural, organic" alpha particles that are better for you than "evil, artificial" ones.

Yes. But, for example, human skin is accustomed to the proportions of radiation from the sun. But is not accustomed to repeated exposure to X-ray analysis. When we introduce circumstances that the body has never been exposed to before... you get malfunctions in the system.

This is really no surprise,up and coming generations are already confused between reality and fantasy,it would only take a few years of advertising for this to be fact and it will not be questioned...well maybe a few on the fringe might

I'm not afraid of a little radiation. I did a lot of research on this back around ten years ago. It can be beneficial for some things but harm your thyroid. There are outcrops of radioactive rock all over the place.

As a person who has worked in the industry this is possibly the single stupidest thing i have ever read!
to borrow the phrase "the science is settled" and has been on the blood of many scientists
and solders and radiation workers that ionising radiation from ANY that's ANY source from an individual
particle to a stellar mass. causes damage to living tissue in a variaty of nasty ways.
the ONLY factors that mitigate this it a mix of the radiant energy of the source,
the distance from the exposed person and the time exposed.

to now say that ah but (SOME) radiation is ok and may be beneficial is downright criminal
and obviously a neat way for corporations and governments to be able to wash their hands
of responsibility for the poor workers they harm by saving them selves a ton of money in maintaining
time honoured safety methods and practices . it is utterly disgusting and typical of the corruption in governments
these days *cough* Monsanto protection act *cough*

Difference is between ionizing and non ionizing, internal and externalized radiation sources.

The don't call it decay for healthy reasons. There is no safe minimum dose.

Once internalized, sources of radioactive contamination emit ionizing radiation that can affect healthy cells in the decay path.

Hormesis has a lot of evidence to back it up, and makes perfect sense. The body has repair mechanisms for damage from radiation, and they can be upregulated in the face of increases in this stressor. The notion is that the damage from the ionizing radiation is more than mitigated by the body's stepping up of defense mechanisms, so that the net effect is an increase in health.

It's really not difficult to understand, but you do have to suspend your belief that all ionizing radiation must be damaging just cause.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
This is interesting and depressing the lengths people will go to make profit in a business that insurers won't touch.....

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering a move to eliminate the “Linear No-Threshold” (LNT) basis of radiation protection that the U.S. has used for decades and replace it with the “radiation hormesis” theory—which holds that low doses of radioactivity are good for people.

www.commondreams.org...

And they are not talking about radiation from evolutionary sources but manmade sources and waste here; so don't start with that argument. We're talking about exposure to persistant artifical sources of radioactivity here. Notice they 'assume' the harm done is by radioactive effects and completely ignore the 'toxic' particulate vector.

The results of this 'policy' change:

The current U.S. requirement that nuclear plant operators reduce exposures to the public to “as low as reasonably achievable” would be “tossed out the window. Emergency planning zones would be significantly reduced or abolished entirely. Instead of being forced to spend money to limit radiation releases, nuclear utilities could pocket greater profits.

How can any 'fragile' human condone the self-destructive insanity of nuclear power and weapons? I suppose the wealthy don't consider themselves 'fragile' and that, my friends, is delusional. They will kill us all.

WTF! Really? Some of us are not so gullible, or forgettable. I remember that after the reactor meltdown and spilling into the Pacific, the U.S.A. changed (INCREASED) the minumum amount radiation allowed. Really? Look it up.

a reply to: xuenchen

Great. Now we will get nuclear waste added to our water. You know because its good for you. And we will get charged to do it.

originally posted by: ZeussusZ
a reply to: xuenchen

Great. Now we will get nuclear waste added to our water. You know because its good for you. And we will get charged to do it.

Reminds me of fluoride.

"I am going to sell ground and low dose waste water from the Hanford Nuclear Power Plant grounds"

Think of the health benefits! Now where did I put Al Gore's number, he's going to want in on this amazing opportunity too!

This doctor probably changed his named to Luckey after that accident that left him with 1 lung and his right nut.. Too bad the damage to his brain was not discovered..

originally posted by: Bedlam

Radiation is radiation. A gamma with a certain energy is exactly the same as any other gamma with that energy. There aren't "natural, organic" alpha particles that are better for you than "evil, artificial" ones.

I only use non-GMO radiation....

I flew nukes round the world for about 6 years and everything was based on time and energy as to how much exposure one was allowed to have, so I do not think this is anything new.

Only if it gives me super powers...only if it gives me super powers. Oh, I guess I'd take wizard powers too.

Unfortunatley radiation exposure usually leads to more nasty, detrimental effects on human tissue.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Only if it gives me super powers...only if it gives me super powers. Oh, I guess I'd take wizard powers too.

Unfortunatley radiation exposure usually leads to more nasty, detrimental effects on human tissue.

Yeah, like SUPER tumors. Or just like the "treatablle" blood cancers such as Leukamia, Multiple Myeloma, Myelodosis...etc.
Yeah, its fine. For the aforementioned pathologies, you go through chemo, perhaps radiation, then other nasty drugs. Then you get stem cells from a donor.
Sometimes you engraft, sometimes you don't.

Keep on fighting.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Nuclear energy is the cleanest power source we have right now, provided it's maintained and built correctly. Fossil fuels are killing this planet.

a reply to: cooperton

UV is UV, whether from the sun or an arc light. What matters with UV is the wavelength not its origins. X-rays are a much more energetic wavelength and cause more damage. However, solar x-rays behave just the same as "artificial" ones, wavelength for wavelength.

a reply to: Bedlam

Sometimes I pretend I'm Captain America when I stand in the upright tanning booth, and its actually my super soldier transformation chamber.

And then other times I feel like a piece of meat dry aging.

So, my mileage kinda varies.