Monday, October 01, 2012
Low Level Radiation Scare - More Proof That It Is A Fraud
Another useful article, if any more are neded, that the theory that low level radiation is harmful, or indeed anything but beneficial, is false and has been maintained by government emopire building bureaucracies.
!green earth was created out of the radioactive waste products of the great nuclear reactions that spawned the galaxies and the planets. Life arose out of, and adapted to, a much higher level of natural radiation than exists today. Nuclear radiation (ionizing radiation: alpha, beta and gamma radiation) is essential to Life; without it, organisms wither and die.
Despite all the radioactive material we create, this radioactivity is nowhere near enough to keep up with the decay of the earth’s natural radioactivity, which becomes inexorably smaller every day. Thus, most populations today are “under-dosed” and would benefit from more irradiation in the range of interest."
This may be a not entirely proven statement since it is hundreds of millions of years since we had a much higher background radiation, - from 4 to 8 times originally and twice current at 0.7-1 gigayears ago. On the one hand that means we have a long time to evolve - on the other hand the salt content of our blood is fair analogue to that of sea water when we first exited the sea & despite the fact that not needing salt would be a lot easier, we still do.
From the conclusion of the same article
"The results of the study contradict the LNT hypothesis. From the database of almost 700,000 shipyard workers, including about 107,000 nuclear workers, two closely matched study groups were selected, consisting of 28,542 nuclear workers with working lifetime doses over 5 mSv (many received doses well in excess of 50 mSv), and 33,352 non-nuclear workers. The data showed that the nuclear workers had a significantly lower death rate from “all malignant neoplasms” though this fact was omitted from the Summary of Findings and not reported in UNSCEAR 1994.
These risk decrements are inconsistent with the LNT hypothesis and do not appear to be explainable by the constantly invoked “healthy worker effect.” The nuclear and the non-nuclear workers were similarly selected for employment, were afforded the same health care thereafter, and except for exposure to shipyard radiation, performed the identical type of work, with a similar median age of entry into employment of about 34 years. This provides evidence with extremely high statistical power that low levels of ionizing radiation are associated with decreased risks.
The 10 million dollar 437 page report was not published...."
!green earth was created out of the radioactive waste products of the great nuclear reactions that spawned the galaxies and the planets. Life arose out of, and adapted to, a much higher level of natural radiation than exists today. Nuclear radiation (ionizing radiation: alpha, beta and gamma radiation) is essential to Life; without it, organisms wither and die.
Despite all the radioactive material we create, this radioactivity is nowhere near enough to keep up with the decay of the earth’s natural radioactivity, which becomes inexorably smaller every day. Thus, most populations today are “under-dosed” and would benefit from more irradiation in the range of interest."
This may be a not entirely proven statement since it is hundreds of millions of years since we had a much higher background radiation, - from 4 to 8 times originally and twice current at 0.7-1 gigayears ago. On the one hand that means we have a long time to evolve - on the other hand the salt content of our blood is fair analogue to that of sea water when we first exited the sea & despite the fact that not needing salt would be a lot easier, we still do.
From the conclusion of the same article
"The results of the study contradict the LNT hypothesis. From the database of almost 700,000 shipyard workers, including about 107,000 nuclear workers, two closely matched study groups were selected, consisting of 28,542 nuclear workers with working lifetime doses over 5 mSv (many received doses well in excess of 50 mSv), and 33,352 non-nuclear workers. The data showed that the nuclear workers had a significantly lower death rate from “all malignant neoplasms” though this fact was omitted from the Summary of Findings and not reported in UNSCEAR 1994.
These risk decrements are inconsistent with the LNT hypothesis and do not appear to be explainable by the constantly invoked “healthy worker effect.” The nuclear and the non-nuclear workers were similarly selected for employment, were afforded the same health care thereafter, and except for exposure to shipyard radiation, performed the identical type of work, with a similar median age of entry into employment of about 34 years. This provides evidence with extremely high statistical power that low levels of ionizing radiation are associated with decreased risks.
The 10 million dollar 437 page report was not published...."
Labels: Government parasitism, Hormesis, nuclear
