Once again theory refudiates evidence.
Lung cancer
Skin Cancer
Now let me tell you about Anthropogenic Global Warming.
“There is broad scientific agreement, however, that even those Colorado doses are far below the thresholds at which health effects could be expected. “
I don’t think there is broad scientific agreement on this issue. The US has been conducting a state-of-the-art study on radiation called the BEIR (Biological effects of ionizing radiation) that has been going for years. The data in the latest BEIR (VII) once again shows that exposure to ionizing radiation increases risk of cancer. (small exposure= small increase in cancer risk).
Every now and then, the theory that some amounts of radiation are good for you pops up. One that has reached Urban Legend status is the claim that many people living in an apartment complex (I think it was Vietnam) constructed with high levels of radioactive cobolt experienced lower incidence of diseases. I saw that one MANY times and wondered about it. Recently, someone posted a link to an abstract of medical report (some recognizable medical institution) detailing the HIGHER incidence of radiation related diseases found among the residents of that apartment complex (leukemia, cancer).
I’ve read posts stating that parts of the earth which are more radioactive naturally have healthier populations (often listing a location in India) so I followed the links on that one and found sham science (small worthless ‘study’ conducted for too short a time period on too few participants without giving parameters for exposure and using radon, a radioactive substance which the body naturally limits intake to tiny levels etc.)
This article mixes mentions of cosmic rays, radon, and uranium sources freely; I think the readership would be better served if writers include brief descriptions that would help the reader understand that these radiation sources do not effect human health the same way. By this I mean teasing out the different types of radiation (Beta, Gamma etc.), levels of energy given off (high energy, low energy) and types of exposure (external, ingestion, breathed in).
My grandparents were pioneers in the Grand Junction area and they both lived and worked in and around uranium mining. My parents also lived there and my mother worked for Climax Uranium with a big ol’ hunk of unranium sitting right beside her desk. In addition we lived in a house built on uranium tailings in Grand Junction. The results: my grandmother lived to be 99 years old, without cancer.My grandfather died at 84 years old from a gall bladder surgery which would probably have been non-fatal in this day and age. My parents are respectively 94 and 91 years old right now and very healthy for their ages. All these people living so well and so long, while living in, on, around and beside radiation, leads me to believe that it must not be all that harmful. I have suspected, as the article suggests, that it may even be somewhat beneficial.
What? Uranium radiation not dangerous to everyone’s health? So proud NIMBY-commies can’t outlaw all naive newbies from using their properties (which belong to the sole arbiters of nature, of course: pensioned first settlers and their partners in government)? Coloradans can’t get their land for nothing? What’s the State coming to? No problem. Just confiscate all of their cattle, outlaw them from any business activities, and hit them with a mess of regulatory charges and lawsuits.
[Little irony and sarcasm there. Have fun. Enjoy the deserved bond collapses and fuel hikes ahead.]
Once again theory refudiates evidence.
Lung cancer
Skin Cancer
Now let me tell you about Anthropogenic Global Warming.