You'll put yer eye out, kid!
Posted on 07/06/2012 6:44:16 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Some things are hard to believe. What you've been told about low-level radiation by the people who are supposed to be responsible authorities is very wrong. The evidence that the official story is wrong is overwhelming.
They know about the evidence. Yet because they have a vested interest in being wrong, they willfully keep being wrong. There is massive evidence that low levels of radiation rather than causing cancer, actually suppress cancer. The reason is, probably, that radiation in small or moderate quantities stimulates cellular repair mechanisms. This is not to negate the fact that large amounts of radiation can kill you or make you sick. This protective effect of low levels of radiation is called radiation hormesis.
The case of radiation hormesis provides yet more evidence that the scientific establishment and the EPA are lacking in objectivity when their interests are at stake. They cling to scare stories like leeches. Be it ionizing radiation or global warming they will not admit that they were wrong, at least if they can avoid it.
Our bodies are bombarded with ionizing radiation because it is everywhere. Radiation is ionizing if the rays or particles have sufficient energy to rip electrons from atoms, a feat that can disrupt biochemical systems. Ionizing radiation comes in the form of cosmic rays, radioactive minerals and even potassium 40, the radioactive isotope of potassium that is always in our bodies and lurking everyplace where potassium is found.
The particles and rays from radioactive decay rip through our cells leaving a trail of destruction in their wake. Our bodies have powerful mechanisms evolved over millions of years to deal with the destruction caused by radiation.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
____________________
Suppose that if humans are hit in the head, above the ear, by an iron ball weighing 3 pounds and traveling 20 miles per hour, half of the subjects will die. Then ask the question what percentage of the subjects will die if hit in the head by a BB traveling 20 miles per hour and weighing 2 tenths of a gram or 1/6000th as much?
According to the linear no threshold theory, the death rate would be 1/6000th as high. Of course a tiny BB thrown gently will be absolutely harmless and no one will die. However if the experiment is performed on hundreds of thousands of people, probably some will die, because people die all the time for various reasons.
It is possible that if an epidemiologist were investigating people hit by gently thrown BB's he would attribute the random natural deaths to the BB syndrome, because, after all, that is what he is investigating. Positive results are publishable, negative results are a waste of time for building one's career.
Another gummit scam is that RF radiation - radio waves causes cancer and FCC came up with regulations establishing “safe” levels.
Proof in real life?
Thousands of RF HF radio station engineers, active hams, spending their time around high power transmitters and walking around antenna systems are living well into their 90ies, no cancer. RF radiation besides heating seems to positively affect immune system and help destroying cancer growth.
Something will get you.
that’s why sites like junkscience.com are so valuable....
that’s why i stay away from doctors or hospitals unless i have a bullet in my head.....
i dont trust the powers that be.....
Something that is not talked about much is how exposure to low level toxin and pathogens sometimes actually boosts the strength of the body. The simplest example is how a child raised on a farm surrounded by bacteria has a much healthier immune system then a child raised in a more sterile environment. Another example is the old American Indian method of building resistance to poison ivy by very small levels of exposure. The old adage that what doesn’t kill you can make you stronger can be true under the right conditions. Drinking is another example, in very minute quanities it can be beneficial while in larger quantities quite destructive. This might actually explain the hundred plus year old men who smoke one cigar or a pipe once a day to the total horror of medical researchers.>
The control group in this case would be exposed to background radiation, or to normal levels found in everyday life.
“Low dose” then becomes a range of values above background and below “causing damage”.
Another hormetic effect that research uncovered which public health officials tried to bury back in the nineties: while smoking is unambiguously dangerous for the smoker, second-hand smoke can actually make those exposed to it more resistant to lung cancer. A 1998 WHO study found that children raised in homes with a smoker were 22% less likely to develop lung cancer than children not exposed to second-hand smoke. Talk about politically incorrect science!
The hormetic effect of second-hand smoke and the WHO report are discussed at http://www.nosmoke-novote.org/evidence-01.htm
You'll put yer eye out, kid!
No, he’ll put his brother’s eye out.
I think a good study would be to compare frequent fliers to people who never fly. What is the cancer rate of people who have to hit those body scanners four or more times a week versus similar people who never fly. I expect to see more cancers, actually.
Well, if that is the standard, then it relies on circular reasoning to support the hypothesis.
I have no idea what you mean.
Are you saying that one can never study the impact of a glass of wine a day on people that drink once a week?
Or we can never find out what amount of drinking water supports a heatly life style because people have to drink some water to subsist and therefore you can never find a control group?
I'll try to explain this one more time. No circles of reasoning here. Usual background radiation results in normal life. So-called "Low level" radiation (which is higher than background) results in lower cancer rates than "normal life". High levels of radiation result in higher cancer rates than "normal life".
No, that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is, it’s misleading to state “low levels of radiation don’t cause cancer” as a hypothesis, when you have defined “low levels” to be those that do not cause cancer. The hypothesis is essentially meaningless.
For the glass of wine example, the amount you are studying is not dependent on the conclusion you will reach, so you could fine that a glass of wine a day is fine, or you could find out it is not. However, if you said “low levels of wine”, instead of a glass a day, and then defined “low levels” to be whatever is not harmful, then you will reach a foregone conclusion, due to circular reasoning.
The article is not saying “low levels of radiation don’t cause cancer” it is saying “low levels of radiation lower the risk of cancer”. Also nobody has defined "low level" to be that which does not cause cancer, because there always is cancer. Where are you getting these definitions, who stated these hypothesis you quote?
You are also confusing journalism with science. In a scientific paper the levels in question (baseline, danger, and the level being studied) are defined in SI units, whatever they are Sieverts, rads, rems...
A journalist will distill this down to terms that are more understandable to the general public, and in this case they decided to call the radiation level at which scientists have observed lower incidences of cancer, "low level".
Seriously, this is not difficult!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.