Click to get your own widget

Monday, March 22, 2010


This is a thread I will update regularly. My other articles on this are here. If anyone has links to further evidence of hormesis (or indeed of the opposing LNT theory) I would be obliged if you would let me know.

The present position among supporters of the official scare story is "epidemiological data relating to low levels of exposure are compatible with a range of curves describing the variation of the underlying risk with the level of exposure, including a curve that is steeper than the LNT relationship (a ‘supralinear’ curve), no risk below a certain level (‘threshold’), or even a protective effect (‘radiation hormesis’)" so they went for LNT.

A list of links paper giving some more recent evidence, pdf, beneficial effects on small animals, therapeutic radon, British Journal of Radiology paper, Spas - where people think it works, Ramsar the world's highest natural, paper, Prof John McCarthy, Professor Bernard Cohen, radon mine results show hormesis


One of the first studies in radiobiology (1898) found that X-irradiated algae grew faster than unirradiated control groups. Stimulated growth was noted in trees (1908) and increased life span in invertebrates (1918) and insects (1919). X-Rays stimulated seedlings (1927), plant growth (1937), along with guinea pigs, rabbits and mice (1940's). Increased life span was the rule in low dose irradiated rats, dogs, and even house flies (1950's) + University of Kyoto summary + Taiwanese apartments contaminated by Cobalt 60 for 20 years where the cancer rate among thousands of people was reduced by 96.4% + summary article + summary article by Donald Miller MD + Radon study in Massachusetts + "There is very likely an optimum dose rate of radiation for good health just as there are optimum levels for essential vitamins & trace elements in our diet ... the recommended average dose (RAD) of radiation will be significantly higher than the annual dose most humans receive from background" Professor John R Cameron in a paper also summarising the evidence that British radiologists had better longevity than other doctors + history article + Professor Cohen's study of hundreds of thousands of homes across the USA proving lung cancer has an inverse relationship with radioactive radon "the importance of smoking for determining variations in lung cancer rates among counties is less than twice that of radon" + Cows exposed to 150 rads for experimental purposes in 1946 put to sleep in 1964 due to their refusal to die as expected - plus other evidence + angelfire radioadaption articles home + "There is no evidence to support the LNT model for chronic exposures, such as those due to natural background radiation - which ranges around the world from less than 1 to more than 200 mSv per year. Cancer instances are, if anything, lower in areas of high background radiation" - 15th Pacific basin Nuclear Conference + "cases are now known where average Rn levels are very high, and in all of these cases lung cancer rates are well below average ... they indicate at least a factor of 4 disagreement with linear, no-threshold predictions" + Low Doses of Very Low-Dose-Rate Low-LET Radiation Suppress Radiation-Induced Neoplastic Transformation In Vitro and Induce an Adaptive Response + Society of Nuclear Medicine & American College of Nuclear Medicine submission to US Nuclear Regulatory Commission "Clear and reproducible data show effects known as “hormesis” + Australian Radiation Protection Soc "Low doses of radiation induce adaptive responses that can reduce, rather than increase risk. These protective effects have both upper and lower dose thresholds" "The problem with a lot of these discussions is that you eventually get to the point where you don't have any more data," said Professor Gillies McKenna of Oxford University, Cancer Research UK's expert on radiation oncology. "Even the data from Hiroshima and Nagasaki — there weren't enormous numbers of cancers created in those cases, so we have to extrapolate what we think would happen at low dose." said defending the LNT theory from criticism by Prof Wade Alison (in fact, as can be seen here, there is plenty of evidence, just none for LNT. + "The linear hypothesis is unsupported by any direct evidence, and there is a lot of evidence against it" Professor John McCarthy, Stanford + "The author shows how proponents of the LNT assumption consistently reject, manipulate, and deliberately ignore an overwhelming abundance of published data and falsely claim that no reliable data are available at doses of less than 100 mSv" + "Several statistically significant epidemiologic studies contradict the validity of this concept [LNT} by showing risk decrements, i.e., hormesis, of cancer mortality and mortality from all causes in populations exposed to low-dose radiation + "..person living in Ramsar for one year can be in excess of 260 mSv ... There are more than nine hot springs in the area with different concentrations of radioisotopes, and these are used as spas by locals and tourists. This high level of radiation does not seem to have caused ill effects on the residents of the area and even possibly has made them slightly more radioresistant, which is puzzling and has been called "radiation paradox" + Paradox - A politically incorrect result of observation + My letter in New scientist - I am entitled to a little boasting - actually they only published it on the online edition & only then because they owed me for having published an extremely stupid letter disputing what I said about nuclear & getting the figures wrong by several thousand times + Google search

Overview + overview + Australian Nuclear Organisation + The High Background Radiation Research Group has investigated thyroid nodularity and cancer rates in the Guangdong Province in China, an area with a natural radiation level 3
times normal. For the years 1975-1978 the high background area had a cancer mortality rate of 36.53 per 10 person-years, compared to 52.85 per 10 person-years for the control area [though overall it says "inconclusive"]
+ "The hormesis hypothesis has been confirmed many times. One study was by the Swedish Army, which accumulated data on conscripts (Sweden has universal manhood conscription) from areas of known high radiation and compared their health statistics to recruits from areas matched in other characteristics. The conclusion was very much in favor of the hormesis theory. One participant in the study was Claes-Gustav Nordquist, the Surgeon Colonel of the Lifeguards Regiment who was until his retirement one of the leading oncologists in Sweden. There have been many others, but Claes is an old friend so I learned a good bit about the details of that study." J. Pournelle + overview + article by Dr Donald Miller + an evolutionary reason why radiation may lengthen life - comment 03-31-2010, 05:56 PM lazybratsche + Extensive evidence suggesting hormesis article + abstract of Evidence for beneficial effects of low level radiation & links to 19 other articles citing it+ radiation using spas + book Radiation hormesis By Thomas D. Luckey + proven in experimental animals

A list of links paper giving some more recent evidence, pdf, beneficial effects on small animals, therapeutic radon, British Journal of Radiology paper, Spas - where people think it works, Ramsar the world's highest natural, paper, Prof John McCarthy, Professor Bernard Cohen, radon mine results show hormesis

ethics - LNT fear kills hundreds of thousands + LNT "pulled out of thin air without any knowledge on which to base them - Eisenhower's science advisor,
1946 Nobel winner deliberately lied to promote rtadiation scare
new mathematical tool

A History of how we got here + Hormesis Overview, paper by TD Luckey + article how politics overrules evidence "U.S. Regulatory Report NCRP-136 ..concluded that most people who get a small dose of nuclear radiation are not harmed by it, and in fact are benefited. That’s what the science said: Most people would benefit by receiving more radiation. But curiously, the report’s final conclusion was just the opposite

20th Dec 11 - Berkeley Lab, through a combination of time-lapse live imaging and mathematical modeling of a special line of human breast cells, have found evidence to suggest that for low dose levels of ionizing radiation, cancer risks may not be directly proportional to dose. This contradicts the standard model for predicting biological damage from ionizing radiation  
This, subject to being repeatable, appears to be indisputable proof that LNT is false. Not necessarily that hormesis is correct but certainly consistent with it. As I write here.

Recent evidence including a study of health of airline crew who are exposed to calculable amouints of radiation. Scientists actively looking for confirmation of LNT instead found cancers "generally lower than in the comparison population" which is consistent only with hormesis.

A pdf  summary.


I have been sent a list dealt with here. It consists of arguments from authority (the powers that be say it so it must be true) which are, by definition, intellectually valueless and even more wrong scientifically and some very careful selection of random fluctuations which would be unworthy even of publication in looking for evidence in real science let alone being accepted as proof.

Nobody anywhere else in the world appears to have been able to produce anything as good.
This article claims to have investigated the Taiwan apartments case and found that the population were so much younger than the national average that the 97% hormesis effect disappears and a small LNT one does - it reads to me to be going into it with an agenda and involving a data dredge but it exists and I know of no refutation

This article claims 4.98% [standard error (SE) = 1.5] per 10-mSv cumulative dose received after age 45 under a 10-year lag, and 7.31% (SE = 2.2) per 10-mSv cumulative dose received after age 45 under a 20-year lag at Oak Ridge. It does not appear to have been replicated anywhere else and is more consistent with a data dredge fitting up random data (would the same effect have been there if it was workers after age 40 or 50 or a 3 year or 15 year interval) in a data dredge.

An online debate where both sides put the case as fully as desired., an entire audience of scientists shamefacedly admitting they know it is a fraud


UNSCEAR the international regulatory agency admits that there is no basis for the LNT claim

This is the Forbes article announcing this news

I celebrate here and here and on ThinkScotland here.

In a world where decisions were made primarily on the basis of fact thjat would be an end of it. Tomorrow morning 95% of nuclear regulations would be ended and we would start pouring concrete for hundreds of new reactors.

 In this world the news has been reported by Forbes and ThinkScotland and that's about it and doubtless, just as the anti-GM & anti-shale gas campaigns have wotked without ever having to produce any evidence of harm or even a credible means by which harm can be done this campaign will keep running. But from now on it is running on empty.

Labels: , ,

Hello Neil, have you been to our website. because of your interest in Radiation Hormesis I thought you might like it.

The radiations are a hot topic for science students where great research work is going on regarding their use.
'Dr P' has done for good honest nurses what Osama bin Laden has done for millions of innocent peace-loving Muslims the world http:// over - given them one heck of a bad image.
Thanks for sharing this post I also share with you some tip hope you like. Don’t carry your phone in your pockets- if you do, point the keypad towards your body and the back of thephone away from your body. This ensures the transmitted electromagnetic fields move away from you and not through you.The body tissue in the lower body area has good conductivity and absorbs radiation more quickly than the head. One study shows that men who wear cell phones near their groin could have their sperm count dropped by as much as 30 percent.
Radiation head phone
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.