Posted on 04/29/2017 1:06:26 PM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
Whether this is true for low radiation doses is hotly disputed in many circles based upon the demonstrated fact that cells have mechanisms to repair DNA damage.
You ridiculously site gravity and entropy....where in your Bible are those referred to?
Science, through observation, developed our understanding of those concepts. To ignore science is in effect to ignore God
“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” “
FAKE NEWS!
Your post makes absolutely no sense.
I don’t know where all this FAKE NEWS about the soviets having such low limits is coming from ...
ignore science? who said that? i have three college degrees in science. i revere true science.
does the Bible have to play the role of a scientific textbook?
even so, references to the laws of physics are apparent there for those with “ears to hear” and of course you’ve got to have faith in God as the Creator and Proprietor of the universe. for instance:
Gen 1:16-17 KJV
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.
“Didn’t realize God profuced safe level standards.”
God bombards us with radiation 24/7.
From the sky and from the earth and in our water.
He must have had a reason for this?
Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.
This study also found that rate of total cancer cases was lower than expected.
“And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.”
The moon is a cold, dead body and orbits near the earth ... and does that mean that Neil Armstrong walked in Heaven?
IF you have three degrees in science then admit that there are limits to what the human body can tolerate. That we study exposures to dangerous substances is a good thing
God gave me a brain to use.
There are many different frequencies of radiation.
Small amounts of poison may not kill you.... large amounts surely will
Underneath there is some good science being done, but most people concerned have strong financial motives to make sure that the truth is suppressed, which means preventing the discussion of any research results that contradicts the wanted outcome.
Go to Lamar Alexander's website and look up the case of Noelle Metting who was removed from her position at the department of energy because she ran a program doing research in this area. Not only did then not want this research pursued, they wanted her money for global climate change.
You lie. Anyone can download BEIR VII from the National Academies website. I did.
There, on p. 4 it states in all its glory "The committee judged that the linear no-threshold model (LNT) provided the most reasonable description of the relation between low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation and the incidence of solid cancers that are induced by ionizing radiation."
They don't justify this conclusion based upon citation to ongoing research, or present verifiable data in support this. They just judged it i.e. provided their opinion, which absent scientific evidence, is of no grater weight than Bill the Cat's opinion and in fact of less weight than Bill the Cat's because these are supposedly reputable scientists who actually know how to make a scientific argument and choose not to.
It's like a report where a scientific panel "judges" that global warming is happening and is likely the result of human activity. You didn't ask them to judge, e.g. opine. You asked them to review the scientific evidence.
The BEIR reports are based on evidence:
“Like previous BEIR reports addressing low-LET (linear energy transfer) radiation, risk models are based primarily from data on Japanese atomic bomb survivors. However, the vast literature on both medically exposed persons and nuclear workers exposed at relatively low doses has been reviewed to evaluate whether findings from these studies are compatible with A-bomb survivor-based models. In many cases, results of fitting models similar to those in this chapter have been published”
In recent years, several national and international organizations have developed models for estimating cancer risk from exposure to low levels of low-LET ionizing radiation. These include the work of the BEIR V committee (NRC 1990), the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP 1991), the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP 1993), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 1994, 1999), the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR 2000b), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH 2003). The approaches used in these past assessments are described in Annex 12A.
There’s more info about the extensive data used to create the report summary you read.
“BEIR VII develops the most up-to-date and comprehensive risk estimates for cancer and other
health effects from exposure to low-level ionizing radiation. It is among the first reports of its kind to
include detailed estimates for cancer incidence in addition to cancer mortality. In general, BEIR VII supports
previously reported risk estimates for cancer and leukemia, but the availability of new and more
extensive data have strengthened confidence in these estimates. A comprehensive review of available biological
and biophysical data supports a “linear-no-threshold” (LNT) risk model—that the risk of cancer
proceeds in a linear fashion at lower doses without a threshold and that the smallest dose has the potential
to cause a small increase in risk to humans”
The didn’t have low limits. They had life damaging high limits. Residents were forced to live in areas that doomed their entire families to suffer shorter, diseased filled lives. The Soviets gave some of them Geiger counters to help them but the things were going off when they touched laundry, dishes, food etc. and it was just a continual reminder that they were living in contaminated zones. The Soviets had no place to put those people. WHen the Russians toured Fukushima, they were appalled to learn that the Japanese threshold was much higher. Takes a lot to shock a former Soviet, no?
I did. The links are to other opinion articles, not to published scientific literature, e.g. "See ... this for more evidence" - which pointing to another blogpost instead of a scientific article is strong evidence, evidence that the author is committing intellectual fraud [the cold fusion and climbate change fraudster communities play this sort of self-referential game all of the time to create the fiction of a scientific peer community].
But here is another one and this both more egregious and more substantive on the topic:
Quoting the blog post - your blogpost - here,As the EPA notes:
Cesium-133 is the only naturally occurring isotope and is non-radioactive; all other isotopes, including cesium-137, are produced by human activity.
So there was no “background radiation” for caesium-137 before above-ground nuclear testing and nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl.
This is a swindle. Of course there is no significant background for Cs 137, being a fission product from uranium or plutonium [spontaneous fission of natural uranium does occur by the way]. But that is irrelevant. The issue is not the chemical effects of the element Cesium, which does exist, but rather the effects of the radiationproduced not uniquely by Cs 137 but by all kinds of other things. Background radiation at the relevant energies does exist from all sorts of sources.
In other words, just like the climate change folks, the folks arguing for the linear no threshold model are piss-poor scientists who latch on to anything in support of their position, and attempt to swindle you into thinking they have an iron-clad argument in their defense.
That the swindle was perpetrated by the EPA just makes it doubly offensive.
The problem is that genetics and immune system functioning, age, and sex all influence the ability for that repair mechanism to work. Children are most sensitive because they are growing and so much of their cells are in the process of DNA replication/cell division. (true for plants/animals as well - the cells undergoing division/replication are most prone to damage). The elderly are next - their body’s ability to heal is diminished by age. Those who have other health issues are more prone to dying of those issues because their body is also attempting to repair radiation damage. Women are twice as sensitive than are men. The BEIR report is the most comprehensive real-world science we have and it supports LNT.
Then don’t read it. :)
Too late. That was why I made my post.
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.