Wonder how long he might have lived had he not sat in front of the x-ray beam?
Here is a picture of Mr. Taylor in his late 50s:
Posted on 04/29/2017 1:06:26 PM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
In 1940, the U.S. National Bureau of Standards (NBS) built this 1,400,000-volt X-ray generator, the most powerful of its kind at the time. The machine was designed to deliver X-rays at an extremely stable voltage, a necessary attribute for the development of standard radiation dosage measurements as well as for research and testing of equipment to protect against X-ray radiation.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectrum.ieee.org ...
Wonder how long he might have lived had he not sat in front of the x-ray beam?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
It could have health benefits. Might have given him long life.
hilarious.
the moral of the story:
trust in God’s standards, not in man’s.
“Wonder how long he might have lived had he not sat in front of the x-ray beam?”
Who knows, but it seems Thomas Edison gave him a cold-cathode X-ray tube during a school visit to Edison’s laboratory. Today of course he would be suspended for possessing hazardous contraband, Child Protective Services would be on alert, and Edison would be in jail! /sarcasm;)
The article is hopelessly manipulative.
“The agency also established the first U.S. standards for X-ray exposure; the chalkboard in the 1959 photo above shows calculated tissue doses for safe radiation exposure.”
Those doses were revealed to be harmful and the science behind x-ray technology continued to revise downward the fake “safety” limits. “Fake” because all radiation exposure is cumulative so none of it is technically “safe” but there is a dose at which many people, when signing the necessary medical release for x-rays, will decide to accept the added risk to their health that the radiation will pose in exchange for the information needed to treat or identify a current health problem.
I think the US used to have a 5 rem allowable limit per year for radiation workers. The communist block countries, ironically, during the cold war were allegedly more conservative.
“Who knows, but it seems Thomas Edison gave him a cold-cathode X-ray tube during a school visit to Edison’s laboratory. Today of course he would be suspended for possessing hazardous contraband, Child Protective Services would be on alert, and Edison would be in jail! /sarcasm;)”
Unfortunately, the above is probably an accurate description of what would happen
Nope. Radiation is harmful and cumulative- decades of state of the art BEIR reports have documented that fact. Humans respond to radiation damage differently and that difference has been likened to a bell curve with about 10% of an exposed population exhibiting “sensitivity” and succumbing quickly, 10% of the population exhibiting resistance and surviving when others don’t, and the rest are in that mound in the middle of the bell curve. The man responsible for the Chernobyl disaster was in the control room when the reactor blew. The men were dusted with radioactive fuel. All the others died grisly deaths from the exposure in a short amount of time, but he lived to a ripe old age, having survived this, his second high exposure to radiation.
Yeah it was 5 rem, but where I was you had to get upper level permission to go past much lower exposures. You’d be moved to some other job long before you hit the limit.
I thought the bomb established safe levels...
Wow.
In Japan, the government has declared “safe” and “livable” areas which are contaminated with radiation at higher levels than the Soviets were willing to tolerate following Chernobyl. The Ukraine’s prohibited zone=Japan’s “safe” living environment.
Radiation thresholds published in: New Scientist
30 October 04
In the light of the series of letters you have published on nuclear power, a study that calls into question the “linear no-threshold” (LNT) theory of radiation may be of interest.
In 1983 a group of 180 apartment buildings was completed in Taiwan. Somebody had made a serious mistake. They had mixed into the concrete a considerable amount of highly radioactive cobalt-60.
This meant that ultimately, for a period of between 9 and 20 years, 10,000 people lived in buildings so radioactive that when it started they were receiving an average of 74 millisieverts of radiation per year, a level that declined thereafter because cobalt-60 has a half-life of 5.27 years. Compare this with the rate of 0.5 mSv above background—the normal maximum exposure for radiation workers—or a total of 15 mSv, the maximum safe limit for land fit for habitation, according to US government standards.
With the LNT theory, which is currently in use worldwide for assessing nuclear risks, there is no lower limit for the level at which radioactivity is lethal for humans (hence the term “no threshold”). So these buildings, inhabited for a decade and a half before the radioactivity was traced and measured, should be the site of a truly massive cancer death rate.
They aren’t.
A thorough and methodical tracing of all the 4000 families by a team led by W. L. Chen of Taiwan, director of medical radiation technology at Taiwan’s National Yang Ming University has resulted in an unequivocal and spectacular result. Cancer rates of people who had lived in those highly radioactive buildings are down to 3.6 per cent of prevailing Taiwanese rates. The full report is available in English on www.jpands.org/vol9no1/chen.pdf .
For many years there has been an unfashionable alternative to the LNT theory called hormesis. This claims that intermediate level radioactivity actually stimulates life and improves health. There has been significant evidence for this (the deaths at Hiroshima did not appear to fit the LNT pattern, there are places in India and Iran with background radiation of 15 mSv or higher and with no observed increase in cancer, and numerous studies of radon in homes have found a reverse correlation between radon levels and cancer rates). Nonetheless, such has been our fear of all things nuclear that the LNT theory has been absolutely accepted, despite the fact that there has never been any actual evidence for it.
This study, however, is so detailed, has such well-defined boundary conditions, and has such a clear result (proving a reduction in cancers of 96.4 per cent) that there can no longer be any intellectual doubt whatsoever. Radioactivity in low doses is good for us.
The effect of this proof on our nuclear power industries can hardly be underestimated, since with the collapse of the LNT go most of the fears that have so crippled them. The implications for medicine, however, cannot even begin to be estimated, as the way is now open for serious research on how hormesis works and how it can be used to serve us.
Neil Craig Glasgow, UK
http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/taiwan-cobalt-60-apartmt-04.htm
Here is a picture of Mr. Taylor in his late 50s:
“http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/04/no-little-radiation-is-not-good-for-you.html";
This article has a fair summary of various aspect you mention. Lots of links supporting LNT theory, refuting hormenesis, and debunking the Taiwan apartment “story” (apples to oranges comparison of apartment complex population to general population). It’s missing some information I’ve seen elsewhere but does a pretty thorough job.
Marie Curie
Didn’t realize God profuced safe level standards.
If you’ve ever suffered a radiation burn you might not be so flip
That'll learn him! We told him them Xrays wuz a hazzard!
He might have lived a nice long life if'n he'd listened to the experts.
LOL
</sarcasm>
“Didn’t realize God profuced safe level standards.”
really FRiend. God based standards like the law of entropy or the law of gravity or the 10 commandments, for instance? belief in those can keep you safe and sound.
don’t know about you, but i’d stake my life on those kind of standards, and yes, i’ve had my personal encounters with radiation.
really can’t think of any man made standards or rules i’d be willing to stake my life on. but to each his own.
Good luck with that
well, thanks FRiend, but i don’t believe in “luck” anymore. may God bless!
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.