Skip to comments.
Radiation may have positive effects on health: study
University of Toronto News ^
| 1-28-05
| Karen Kelly
Posted on 01/30/2005 3:33:09 PM PST by beavus
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
1
posted on
01/30/2005 3:33:09 PM PST
by
beavus
To: beavus
"Voles typically make runways under dense vegetation or shallow burrows in the ground." I'm sure not a scientist but since the study is focused on voles and voles typically aren't exposed to significant amounts of sunlight and its associated atmospheric radiations I think it possible the beneficial effects are illusory and simply compensate for a natural deficiency. I doubt the results could be extrapolated to demonstrate benefits to humans...unless of course they are trolls.
2
posted on
01/30/2005 3:42:47 PM PST
by
Cornpone
(Aging Warrior -- Aim High -- Hit'em in the Head)
To: beavus
I worked for 4 years at a BWR, never had a cold or the flu in that entire time. My average exposure was 10 times what I got at a PWR, usually a mmrem or two a day, 5 days a week. A PhD working there told me about hormesis, but also told me it was a verboten subject to the NRC.
To: beavus
gamma radiation? Hey I seem to remember something about that.....
To: beavus
5
posted on
01/30/2005 3:51:16 PM PST
by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
To: neverdem
6
posted on
01/30/2005 3:51:18 PM PST
by
farmfriend
( Congratulations. You are everything we've come to expect from years of government training.)
To: Cornpone
I think it possible the beneficial effects are illusory and simply compensate for a natural deficiency. But if there truly is such a compensation, then doesn't that demonstrate that low levels of radiation are beneficial to at least one type of mammal? It is currently presumed that less radiation exposure is always better. This study seems to provide evidence to suggest that is not a universally valid claim.
7
posted on
01/30/2005 3:51:56 PM PST
by
beavus
To: nuke rocketeer
What's the NRC's problem with hormesis?
8
posted on
01/30/2005 3:52:28 PM PST
by
beavus
To: beavus
Dr. K.Z. Morgan, the "father" of Health Physics and a staunch proponent of the linear theory of biological damage from radiation must be rolling in his grave.
To: Names Ash Housewares
Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.
10
posted on
01/30/2005 3:52:59 PM PST
by
beavus
To: beavus
Nukes, anyone?
11
posted on
01/30/2005 3:53:12 PM PST
by
RandallFlagg
(Roll your own cigarettes! You'll save bucks and smoke less!(Magnetic bumper stickers-click my name)
To: beavus
NRC has enshrined the ALARA concept and doesn't want to upset the anti-nuke crowd.
12
posted on
01/30/2005 3:54:47 PM PST
by
Tijeras_Slim
(LOUSY FREEPER TROLL!!!)
To: beavus
"But if there truly is such a compensation, then doesn't that demonstrate that low levels of radiation are beneficial to at least one type of mammal? It is currently presumed that less radiation exposure is always better. This study seems to provide evidence to suggest that is not a universally valid claim." Your point is well taken. However, my point is the perceived benefits are to a species that receives very little radiation to start with. Most mammals are daily exposed, and have adapted to, radiation from the sun. The voles spend most of their time in darkness. By the same token, I suppose blind creatures that live in caves, such as certain fish and insects, would benefit from exposure to radiation. They would either develop the ability to see or perish.
13
posted on
01/30/2005 3:59:54 PM PST
by
Cornpone
(Aging Warrior -- Aim High -- Hit'em in the Head)
To: beavus
I can vouch for this. Radiation leaves me absolutely glowing.
14
posted on
01/30/2005 4:01:28 PM PST
by
Nachoman
To: Tijeras_Slim
I have a Masters in HP from '78 at Ga. Tech (MSANS)
and have been a physician for 22 years
I thought then that the ALARA principal was a politically correct position that was counter to any meaningful scientific knowledge, and that it's implementation was needlessly strangling the nuclear industry.
To: Tijeras_Slim
NRC has enshrined the ALARA concept and doesn't want to upset the anti-nuke crowd. Figures.
16
posted on
01/30/2005 4:02:53 PM PST
by
beavus
To: beavus
Well then, reading this study makes this old swabbie want
to grab his rag mop and head on up to Three Mile Island and
start cleaning up that mess.
17
posted on
01/30/2005 4:03:26 PM PST
by
ExSafecracker
(They are liberals, they lie, do the math!)
To: Cornpone
You may be right, but the newsworthyness of the article is in the possible paradigm shift.
18
posted on
01/30/2005 4:04:33 PM PST
by
beavus
To: E. Pluribus Unum
fascinating - thanks for the link.
19
posted on
01/30/2005 4:05:14 PM PST
by
Lil'freeper
(Error 404. The requested file was not found.)
To: Cornpone
DNA damage associated with UV light is qualitatively different than ionizing radiation damage, primarily thymine dimer formation. are you hypothesizing that this species has different responses to ionizing radiation as well?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson