banner1

Home arrow Forum arrow Everything Biology Medicine and Health Healthy radiation????
Main Menu
Home
News
Links
Wiki
Search
Administrator
FAQ
Contact Us
Science Books
Register
Online Store
Science on the Web
Store - beta
Project Fork
Feature Sections
Encyclopedia Astronuc
ID Watch
Community Menu
Forum
Chat Room
Einstein@Home
Member Blogs
CB
CB User List
Login Form
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 20, 2008, 09:13:18 AM
Username: Password:
Login with username, password and session length

Password reminder
Newsflash
Everything Science Forum
November 20, 2008, 09:13:18 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Healthy radiation????  (Read 2631 times)
Rxke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 390


Babblin cluelessly, as usual...


WWW
« on: January 03, 2004, 01:14:36 AM »

stumbled upon a discussion somewhere about GCNR propulsion, where one of the supporters said we need a minimum dose of radiation to make our immune system working.

Huh? I searched on google but i can't seem to find evidence of this, it should be a fairly recent finding... (don't be afraid, if this turns out to be bozoscience, i will *not* go into discussion) ;D
Orstio
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5854



WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2004, 04:44:07 AM »

Just the opposite, it seems:

http://www.doh.wa.gov/hanford/publications/overview/immune.html

http://www.ciesin.org/TG/HH/ozimmun.html
Rxke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 390


Babblin cluelessly, as usual...


WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2004, 10:18:48 AM »

yeah, i did find one article, but didn't bookmark it, about a paper that showed how low doses triggered the immune system... If you want to read that positive (errrr) you could say radiation makes your immune system """"work""""", but that's a stupid conclusion... It's not a positive reaction, it's a 'danger will robinson' reaction, IMHO.
Orstio
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5854



WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2004, 10:41:30 AM »

Auto-immune thyroid disease (among other auto-immune dysfunctions, like MS, lupus and Crohn's) wouldn't exactly be what I would call a "working" immune system either.

It's kind of like saying that Chernobyl was "working" several years after it exploded.  
yale
MegaLipidCephaloid
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3839



« Reply #4 on: January 05, 2004, 06:17:15 AM »

http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1026.html


Hormesis is a quite controversial principal that low radiation exposures LOWER death rates and increase life span. There is a growing collection of studies that ~do~ APPEAR to document the reality of the process.

A couple of good articles are

Is Radiation Good for You? Or dioxin? Or arsenic?"
discover magazine December 2002

and

HORMESIS: A Healthful Dab of Radiation?
Science Oct 17 2003: 378

No official organization has accepted the concept yet in the form of regulation changes.


yale
Rxke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 390


Babblin cluelessly, as usual...


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 05, 2004, 09:19:50 AM »

Interesting. But looks like a subject better left alone in certain circles, i'm afraid.... Or are there nuclear 'moderates' too?  ;D
(ow, come to think of it, i might be one...)
yale
MegaLipidCephaloid
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3839



« Reply #6 on: January 05, 2004, 02:35:25 PM »

ES is certainly a safe place to discuss this stuff.

Reasonable amounts of civility is the norm here. Many of us are refugees from sites of complete incivility and boorishness. We have no desire to act like that. When I am in a irritable mood I will visit one of those sites just for the fun, but this is not the place for it.

Now, I am an absolute opponent of the use of nuclear energy, while Vishniac, for example, is a strong proponent of nuclear power (with a complete spectrum of viewpoints between).

Yet we have no problems here with the issue. (Altho I do seem to rankle people a bit with my staunch oppposition to nuclear fusion in addition to fission technologies.)  

Other examples include religion. M'Lady PayloadController is deeply devout, while others (maybe the majority) are agnostic, or atheist. Yet friction rarely gets intense or prolonged.

The most contentious area is located, by design, in the Eath Politics forum. Even there, debate rarely gets out of hand. Again, I typically only visit there when I am in an irritable mood.

yale



Orstio
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5854



WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 05, 2004, 03:16:05 PM »

Others may disagree, but I'd generally call myself moderate on the issue of nuclear energy.

It has its pros and cons, but I think it takes us in the proper direction, for the time being.  So, I'm usually pro-nuclear, except when it comes to the extremes (like Project Orion).

Having lived in a heavily-forested area of Canada, I am also somewhat jaded to the mis-intentioned environmental groups.  I have seen in my lifetime both deer and seals become over-populated due to hunting bans put in place mainly due to environmentalist pressures.  The results are catastrophic.

My take on nuclear and environmental issues is simply: "All in moderation."
Dingo1
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2223


Pembela bag2 alfa satu


« Reply #8 on: January 06, 2004, 12:54:58 AM »

As a proponet for use of nuclear energy in outerspace, yet at the same time not a proponet for the use of  nuclear energy on earth, exspecially the use of a nuclear fusion plant (Which Yale and I accually share the same viewpoint about...a rarity in itself)..I am going to suggest the moderator of the General Science forum, move this thread to the Earth Politics forum for further discussion
remcook
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4338


hopeless ES addict


WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 06, 2004, 01:12:51 AM »

mmm..not sure about moving this....it started out as a general science topic.
ZeroGeezus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1652


false prophet & coulrophobe


WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 06, 2004, 07:32:01 AM »

I must of missed the thread(s) where Dingo and Yale objected objected to fusion power. --hehe-- How about a brief synopsis of why. Is it the enormous costs and the so near yet so far horizon of pratical fusion?
Dingo1
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2223


Pembela bag2 alfa satu


« Reply #11 on: January 06, 2004, 09:19:32 AM »

Rxke,
The reason why object, is the danger, and the secondary radiation.  You read about how "safe" and low radiation fusion is.  By itself, it is, but then you have to take in account secondary radiation.  Look into the Bikini Nuclear tests where they tested fusion bombs.  The secondary radiation, though relatively short lived, was a heck of a lot more powerful than a fission bomb.  The surronding area is still radioactive.  And these were air bursts.
Now build a Fusion plant, which will take a fission plant's power to start the reaction.  If they lose containment of the reaction, which is running at 15 million degree's, it will blast an area for several miles around the plant, contaminating all of that material, which is now hightly radioactive, and blow it into the atmosphere, making Cherinova look like a fire cracker in comparision.  It would be a ground burst, whcih generates several times the amount of radioactive debree than an airburst would.  Yale can give you the figures and such
yale
MegaLipidCephaloid
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3839



« Reply #12 on: January 06, 2004, 10:32:30 AM »

Some of my main concerns (in reverse order)
1) black hole for research funds (expensive and ready in only 20 years in the future - for the last 50 years)
2) diverts future planning from moving forward with known viable energy solution (rather than chasing pie-in-the-sky)
3) If viable, would likely continue tendency toward over-centralization, vulnerabilty to disruption, excess-scale, etc.
4) continues pointless (and EXPENSIVE) trend toward electrification. Less than 10% of end-use needs are best met with electricity.
5) Produces enormous quantities of radioactive tritium - which we have had a miserable track record of containing.

and most important (dwarfing other points by a zillion orders of magnitude):

6) Fusion would facilitate atomic bomb proliferation more severely than almost any other nuclear option - including fission with reprocessing or enrichment. We essentially are racing like lemmings to drown ourselves in weapons usable materials.


QUOTE:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fusion reactors can be used as fission breeders...

Any breeder is a large proliferation hazard and would have
to be in a secure area with close government oversight....

Even pure fusion has a significant proliferation hazard in that a rogue country or reactor operator could slip 238U in the blanket and breed plutonium. This potential proliferation hazard of a pure fusion reactor has received very little attention....

Dr. Wallace Manheimer
Senior Scientist for Fundamental Plasma Processes
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington DC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, because fusion neutrons could be used to generate fissile material, fusion power plants will have to be subject to international safeguards.
--- United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All these advanced nuclear energy systems will also unfortunately have potential use in the clandestine manufacture of weapon material. This is because nearly all systems envisioned so far either rely on a neutron flux to induce nuclear fission, or produce a neutron flux as a by-product of nuclear fusion. In all cases, safeguards will be required to verify that nuclear weapon materials are not being produced in the flux.
--- William C. Sailor, Los Alamos Natl. Lab.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pure fusion power, if developed as an economically attractive power source, would retain many of the technological connections with nuclear weapons, contributing to their substantial latent proliferation.
--- Dr. Theodore Taylor, Former Deputy Director for Technology, US Defense Nuclear Agency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


yale
yale
MegaLipidCephaloid
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3839



« Reply #13 on: January 06, 2004, 03:48:19 PM »

ZG...

Here is a typical old (but quite informative and entertaining)  thread on the subject:

http://pub80.ezboard.com/feverythingspacefrm24.showMessage?topicID=29.topic
yale
MegaLipidCephaloid
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3839



« Reply #14 on: June 30, 2005, 07:31:21 PM »

Just released by the National Academies of Science:
================================================
Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation May Cause Harm

WASHINGTON -- A preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even low doses of ionizing radiation, such as gamma rays and X-rays, are likely to pose some risk of adverse health effects, says a new report from the National Academies' National Research Council.

The report's focus is low-dose, low-LET -- "linear energy transfer" -- ionizing radiation that is energetic enough to break biomolecular bonds. In living organisms, such radiation can cause DNA damage that eventually leads to cancers. However, more research is needed to determine whether low doses of radiation may also cause other health problems, such as heart disease and stroke, which are now seen with high doses of low-LET radiation.

The study committee defined low doses as those ranging from nearly zero to about 100 millisievert (mSv) -- units that measure radiation energy deposited in living tissue. The radiation dose from a chest X-ray is about 0.1 mSv. In the United States, people are exposed on average to about 3 mSv of natural "background" radiation annually.

The committee's report develops the most up-to-date and comprehensive risk estimates for cancer and other health effects from exposure to low-level ionizing radiation. In general, the report supports previously reported risk estimates for solid cancer and leukemia, but the availability of new and more extensive data have strengthened confidence in these estimates.

Specifically, the committee's thorough review of available biological and biophysical data supports a "linear, no-threshold" (LNT) risk model, which says that the smallest dose of low-level ionizing radiation has the potential to cause an increase in health risks to humans. In the past, some researchers have argued that the LNT model exaggerates adverse health effects, while others have said that it underestimates the harm. The preponderance of evidence supports the LNT model, this new report says.

"The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," said committee chair Richard R. Monson, associate dean for professional education and professor of epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston. "The health risks – particularly the development of solid cancers in organs – rise proportionally with exposure. At low doses of radiation, the risk of inducing solid cancers is very small. As the overall lifetime exposure increases, so does the risk." The report is the seventh in a series on the biological effects of ionizing radiation.

Assessing Health Risks

The committee's risk models for exposure to low-level ionizing radiation were based on a sex and age distribution similar to that of the entire U.S. population, and refer to the risk that an individual would face over his or her life span. These models predict that about one out of 100 people would likely develop solid cancer or leukemia from an exposure of 0.1 Sv (100 mSv). About 42 additional people in the same group would be expected to develop solid cancer or leukemia from other causes. Roughly half of these cancers would result in death. These particular estimates are uncertain, however, because of limitations in the data used to develop risk models.

Survivors of atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, were the primary sources of data for estimating risks of most solid cancers and leukemia from exposure to ionizing radiation. The committee's review included an examination of updated cancer-incidence data from tumor registries of the survivors, and of research data on solid cancer deaths -- which is now more abundant because the number of deaths available for analysis has nearly doubled since the Research Council published its previous report on this topic in 1990. The committee combined this information with data on people who had been medically exposed to radiation to estimate risks of breast cancer in women and thyroid cancer. Data from additional medical studies and from studies of people exposed to radiation through their occupations also were evaluated and found to be compatible with the committee's statistical models. Follow-up studies should continue for the indefinite future, the report says.

Adverse hereditary health effects that could be attributed to radiation have not been found in studies of children whose parents were exposed to radiation from the atomic bombs. However, studies of mice and other organisms have produced extensive data showing that radiation-induced cell mutations in sperm and eggs can be passed on to offspring, the report says. There is no reason to believe that such mutations could not also be passed on to human offspring. The failure to observe such effects in Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably reflects an insufficiently large survivor population.

Follow-up studies of people who receive computed tomography (CT) scans, especially children, should be conducted, the report adds. Also needed are studies of infants who are exposed to diagnostic radiation because catheters have been placed in their hearts, as well as infants who receive multiple X-rays to monitor pulmonary development. CT scans, often referred to as whole body scans, result in higher doses of radiation than typically experienced with conventional X-rays.

Sources of Ionizing Radiation

People are exposed to natural background ionizing radiation from the universe, the ground, and basic activities such as eating, drinking, and breathing. These sources account for about 82 percent of human exposure.

Nationwide, man-made radiation comprises 18 percent of human exposure. In this overall category, medical X-rays and nuclear medicine account for about 79 percent, the report says. Elements in consumer products -- such as tobacco, tap water, and building materials -- account for another 16 percent. Occupational exposure, fallout, and the use of nuclear fuel constitute roughly 5 percent of the man-made component nationwide.

Factors that could increase exposure include greater use of radiation for medical purposes, working around radioactive materials, and smoking tobacco. Living at low altitudes, where there is less cosmic radiation, and living and working on the upper floors of buildings, where there is less radon gas -- a primary source of natural ionizing radiation -- are factors that could decrease exposure.

The report was sponsored by the U.S. departments of Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The National Research Council is the principal operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. It is a private, nonprofit institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter. A committee roster follows.


Copies of Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII - Phase 2) will be available this summer from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu. Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).


[ This news release and report are available at http://national-academies.org ]


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Division on Earth and Life Studies
Board on Radiation Effects Research

Committee to Assess Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation

Richard R. Monson, M.D., Sc.D. (chair)
Associate Dean for Professional Education, and
Professor of Epidemiology
School of Public Health
Harvard University
Boston

James E. Cleaver, Ph.D.(1) (vice chair)
Professor of Dermatology
Cancer Center and Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry
University of California
San Francisco

Herbert L. Abrams, M.D. (2)
Professor Emeritus of Radiology
Stanford University Medical School, and
Member in Residence
Stanford Center for International Security and Cooperation
Stanford, Calif.

Eula Bingham, Ph.D. (2)
Professor of Environmental Health
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati

Patricia A. Buffler, Ph.D. (2)
Kenneth and Marjorie Kaiser Chair of Cancer Epidemiology, and
Professor of Epidemiology
School of Public Health
University of California
Berkeley

Elisabeth Cardis, Ph.D.
Chief, Unit of Radiation and Cancer
International Agency for Research on Cancer
Lyon, France

Roger Cox, Ph.D.
Director
National Radiological Protection Board
Chilton, United Kingdom

Scott Davis, Ph.D.
Professor and Chair
Department of Epidemiology
School of Public Health and Community Medicine
University of Washington, and
Full Member
Program in Epidemiology
Division of Public Health Sciences
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
Seattle

William C. Dewey, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of Radiation Oncology
University of California
San Francisco

Ethel S. Gilbert, Ph.D.
Biostatistician
Radiation Epidemiology Branch
National Cancer Institute
Bethesda, Md.

Albrecht Kellerer, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
University of Munich
Munich, Germany

Daniel Krewski, Ph.D., M.H.A.
Director
McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment, and
Professor of Medicine and of Epidemiology and Community Medicine
University of Ottawa
Ontario, Canada

Tomas Lindahl, M.D.
Director
Clare Hall Laboratories
Cancer Research U.K.
London

Katherine E. Rowan, Ph.D.
Professor and Associate Chair
Department of Communication
George Mason University
Fairfax, Va.

K. Sankaranarayanan, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Department of Toxicogenetics
Leiden University Medical Centre
Leiden, Netherlands

Daniel W. Schafer, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Statistics
Oregon State University
Corvallis

Robert L. Ullrich, Ph.D.
Barbara Cox Anthony University Chair in Oncology
Departments of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences and of Clinical Sciences
Colorado State University
Fort Collins

RESEARCH COUNCIL STAFF

Rick Jostes, Ph.D.
Study Director

Evan B. Douple, Ph.D.
Director
Board on Radiation Effects Research


(1) Member, National Academy of Sciences
(2) Member, Institute of Medicine
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
 

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 2.0 Beta 3.1 Public | SMF © 2006–2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.231 seconds with 21 queries.

Valid XHTML 1.0!


Mambo is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL License.