Chernobyl

Sort of like "The Bookshelf" but for... you get the idea.
User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11318
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:57 pm

mack_10 wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:20 pm
As for "radio hormesis" physicists need to stop talking about biology and stick to something they do understand.
Biology is something I understand.
If we could live in a radiation-free environment with perfect nutrition and no disease, we could live... who knows? 200 years?
We live in a world which assaults our bodies daily at the cellular level. Cells die and new ones are replicated, but each time the cell contains more genetic errors. By about 50 cell divisions (the Hayflick limit) the cells can't divide anymore and just die.
We have little knowledge about long-term effects. A man dies of cancer at 80, but would he have lived to 90 if he hadn't had radium dials on his aircraft in WWII? Guesswork.

There are substances which our body can handle in small amounts, excreting them before they can do harm. At higher amounts, the body is overwhelmed and damage is done. This is why "safe levels" were established. But hysteria has conflated all substances deemed "dangerous" to be dangerous at all levels. An example is lead. At low (safe) levels, the body transports the lead out of the body before it can do the body harm. But nonthinking hysteria seeks to ban lead everywhere, even in ridiculous situations where the US Coast Guard was prevented from conducting shooting exercises because they were putting lead into the water. The fact that the amount of lead added to the environment was far below natural background levels, seems to have been ignored.

Radiation is not a hazard which has a safe level, whereby the body removes it before it can cause harm. The damage to cells and chromosomes is instantaneous. The body has no defense other than to remove the damaged cells and replicate new ones. With each new cell division comes the risk of cancer.
There is truly no safe level of radiation.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13199
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:06 pm

The data disagrees.
As I pointed out, Hiroshima survivors who received less than 100 millisieverts radiation lived as long and had no more cancer than people elsewhere in Japan. People living in Ramsa who receive 250 millisieverts per year show no signs of harm. The idea that all levels of radiation cause harm flies in the face of observed reality. It also denies the most basic principle of toxicology.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19375
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Chernobyl

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:54 pm

:pc: ---because I don't know. Yea and nay arguments both make sense. Even Landrew makes sense.

Lance is not to be trusted though.....he refuses to accept any new/different information once he as formed a conclusion. AS REVEALED BY: refusal to accept that hypothetical is a noun even though EVERY link he can find says that it is. Stubborn.

Still.........I slam Lance to note it IS important and a value slant on the issues to recognize how much death and destruction comes from Dams. More than I had thought. I'm open to new and different info.

.................................... we all should be.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11318
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:01 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:06 pm
The data disagrees.
As I pointed out, Hiroshima survivors who received less than 100 millisieverts radiation lived as long and had no more cancer than people elsewhere in Japan. People living in Ramsa who receive 250 millisieverts per year show no signs of harm. The idea that all levels of radiation cause harm flies in the face of observed reality. It also denies the most basic principle of toxicology.
People die of cancers at all ages. Statistics will never reveal whether low levels of exposure lead to such cancers. There's no mechanism whereby radiation could be deemed "harmless."
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13199
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:30 am

The mechanism, landrew, is called healing. In fact, the human body works on a general principle that shows any part that is required to operate (although not to an excessive extent) actually gets stronger with that operation. For example, Scientific American (June 2019) had an article pointing out findings of live vaccines giving immunity to diseases other than the target.

If a small amount of radiation forces a small amount of healing, then it is entirely reasonable that the healing process gets stronger. This is just like muscles that are exercised getting stronger, in spite of the fact that biopsy measurements show damage to muscle tissue.

The human body is not an old car that wears out with use. Exercising different parts of the body make them stronger.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11318
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:09 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:30 am
The mechanism, landrew, is called healing. In fact, the human body works on a general principle that shows any part that is required to operate (although not to an excessive extent) actually gets stronger with that operation. For example, Scientific American (June 2019) had an article pointing out findings of live vaccines giving immunity to diseases other than the target.

If a small amount of radiation forces a small amount of healing, then it is entirely reasonable that the healing process gets stronger. This is just like muscles that are exercised getting stronger, in spite of the fact that biopsy measurements show damage to muscle tissue.

The human body is not an old car that wears out with use. Exercising different parts of the body make them stronger.
Radiation doesn't help the body in any way. The "healing" you speak of wouldn't even be necessary if it weren't for radiation damage. Look it up yourself; every time the body heals, it creates more genetic errors. It's a complete fallacy to think of it as exercise or anything beneficial to the body. Try as you might, the notion of radiation as a health benefit was denounced as quackery over a century ago. There are simply zero benefits to radiation on the body. Radiation treatments for cancer are simply another way to kill cancer cells. It's not better than surgery or chemotherapy.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13199
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:37 am

Wrong.

When you pump iron, you damage muscle cells. The end result is stronger muscles.
Many years ago, I got the smallpox vaccine (live vaccinia virus) and more recently researchers found that people who have had that vaccine are more resistant to both melanoma and tuberculosis. I can assure you that the smallpox vaccine did damage. It hurt, leaving a nasty sore and in the end, a small permanent scar. But it made me stronger.

The idea of radiohormesis is that small doses of radiation, well below that which has been shown to be harmful, stimulate the mechanisms involved in repair and regrowth, thus making people more resistant to cancers and mutations. This idea is still controversial, despite a lot of solid empirical data to support it. But it certainly is consistent with other body mechanisms.

It is also true that our ancestors have lived with low levels of radiation for billions of years. It makes sense that evolution should equip us to resist harm from small doses. The natural background doses normally vary from next to zero to about 100 millisieverts per year. It would be weird if those doses were harmful after billions of years of evolution.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19375
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Chernobyl

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:13 am

Abstract

Three aspects of hormesis with low doses of ionizing radiation are presented: the good, the bad, and the ugly. The good is acceptance by France, Japan, and China of the thousands of studies showing stimulation and/or benefit, with no harm, from low dose irradiation. This includes thousands of people who live in good health with high background radiation. The bad is the nonacceptance of radiation hormesis by the U. S. and most other governments; their linear no threshold (LNT) concept promulgates fear of all radiation and produces laws which have no basis in mammalian physiology. The LNT concept leads to poor health, unreasonable medicine and oppressed industries. The ugly is decades of deception by medical and radiation committees which refuse to consider valid evidence of radiation hormesis in cancer, other diseases, and health. Specific examples are provided for the good, the bad, and the ugly in radiation hormesis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477686/
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13199
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Jul 12, 2019 8:58 am

Thank you Bobbo. That is one of many scientific articles supportive of radiohormesis.

It is still controversial, and more studies will be done. But it is not appropriate to reject this out of hand out of ignorance.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11318
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:49 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 8:58 am
Thank you Bobbo. That is one of many scientific articles supportive of radiohormesis.

It is still controversial, and more studies will be done. But it is not appropriate to reject this out of hand out of ignorance.
Reports by the United States National Research Council and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) argue that there is no evidence for radiation hormesis in humans and in the case of the National Research Council hormesis is outright rejected as a possibility.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13199
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:00 pm

As has already been said, landrew. We know that the USA is the home of skepticism towards radio hormesis. And the evidence for radio hormesis in humans is still thin, basically because it is not possible ethically to run the required experiments.

There is plenty of less convincing evidence, like the fact that the people of Ramsa have a low rate of mutation. Or the study carried out by Professor Cameron that showed that workers on nuclear ships had a 40% lower cancer rate than workers on conventional ships. But there is still scope for skepticism until a suitably convincing experiment is carried out, and that may never happen because experimenting on humans is generally not permitted.

There is no doubt that radio hormesis is a reality in laboratory animals, whether nematodes, yeast, or laboratory mice. That is well established. It is just a problem with a lack of experiments on people.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19375
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Chernobyl

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:19 pm

USA: not a leader in too many areas of science.........more deeply: the "science" is "there" but it is negated by political/social official positions and a generally uniformed and uninterested public. all leading to the control point: the various special (ie MONEY) interests that apply.

Who wants to deny that animal studies lead the way in most areas of medical interest? Not slam dunk proof.......just the best evidence available.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13199
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Jul 13, 2019 12:48 am

Just to back up what I have already said here is a paper on radio hormesis on mice.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5106546/

Immunocompromised mice exposed to radiation lived longer than the control group.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11318
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Sat Jul 13, 2019 1:47 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 12:48 am
Just to back up what I have already said here is a paper on radio hormesis on mice.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5106546/

Immunocompromised mice exposed to radiation lived longer than the control group.
Mice are programmed to have short lives. I'm not surprised if radiation impairs that function. No evidence for that in humans.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13199
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:56 pm

Not correct. There is evidence. For example, the people of Ramsa, Iran, who receive 250 millisieverts radiation per year (compared to the global average of 3) and have been gene tested, show a significant reduction in total mutations. It should be more mutations, if your ideas were correct, landrew. But the difference is enhanced healing.

Couple decades back, Professor John Cameron looked at 37,000 ship builders and found a substantial reduction in cancer rate among those who worked on nuclear ships, and were subject to more radiation, compared to those working on conventional ships.

There is significant evidence for humans. The thing is that actual experiments cannot be done on humans, and this is enough for many nay sayers to deny the existence of radio hormesis, despite epidemiology and despite the clear fact that it works on laboratory animals.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11318
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:41 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:56 pm
Not correct. There is evidence. For example, the people of Ramsa, Iran, who receive 250 millisieverts radiation per year (compared to the global average of 3) and have been gene tested, show a significant reduction in total mutations. It should be more mutations, if your ideas were correct, landrew. But the difference is enhanced healing.

Couple decades back, Professor John Cameron looked at 37,000 ship builders and found a substantial reduction in cancer rate among those who worked on nuclear ships, and were subject to more radiation, compared to those working on conventional ships.

There is significant evidence for humans. The thing is that actual experiments cannot be done on humans, and this is enough for many nay sayers to deny the existence of radio hormesis, despite epidemiology and despite the clear fact that it works on laboratory animals.
Rarely do all the studies say the same thing. It takes many replicated studies, properly conducted and disseminated for a weighted verdict to be achieved. You're taking advantage of uncertainty and doubt to form premature conclusions.

I come from the perspective of analyzing the mode of action, and it strongly suggests no possibility of beneficial effects from ionizing radiation.
Either of us could be wrong, so unless one of us has access to replicated studies, we'll have to be content to disagree.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13199
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:15 pm

Mode of action is easy. The human body has mechanisms for repairing DNA, for eliminating cancer cells, and for programmed cell suicide. All that is needed is for these mechanisms to be boosted.

We already know that exercising a system works to boost that system. Vaccines exercise parts of the immune system and boost their effect. Exercise boosts muscle cells. Ingesting small amounts of some toxins are known to be beneficial, like a little ethanol. Why should it be so impossible to believe that exercising the systems that repair radiation damage should boost those systems, also ?

The only good reason to refuse to believe that radiation hormesis is real is a lack of experimental results on humans.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11318
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Sun Jul 14, 2019 12:34 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:15 pm
Mode of action is easy. The human body has mechanisms for repairing DNA, for eliminating cancer cells, and for programmed cell suicide. All that is needed is for these mechanisms to be boosted.

We already know that exercising a system works to boost that system. Vaccines exercise parts of the immune system and boost their effect. Exercise boosts muscle cells. Ingesting small amounts of some toxins are known to be beneficial, like a little ethanol. Why should it be so impossible to believe that exercising the systems that repair radiation damage should boost those systems, also ?

The only good reason to refuse to believe that radiation hormesis is real is a lack of experimental results on humans.
There's no such thing as "boosting."
All the quackery about "boosting the immune system" are merely promoting something which has mild toxicity. Every "repaired" cell is a less-perfect copy of its parent. The more "repair" a body requires, the sooner it will become infirm and more susceptible to illness and/or mortality.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13199
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Jul 14, 2019 12:53 am

Not quite true. For example, exercise kills muscle cells which are replaced by new cells, and more of them, making muscle tissue stronger. People who do lots of exercise live longer and stay healthier, despite the replacement of cells.

Of course, there are lots of quack claims about boosting the immune system which do not work. But vaccines do work.

There is zero evidence that more repair increases decrepitude. For example, people who do physical work age better than those who are sedentary. Yet those more physical people will inevitably suffer more minor injuries. It is also true that blood donors on average, live longer and are healthier than non donors. Giving blood involves a minor injury, and requires repair, in that more red blood cells must be made.

You have a poor idea of biology, landrew, if you think using the body harms it. The rule for living things is that using the body more makes it better.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11318
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Sun Jul 14, 2019 2:49 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 12:53 am
Not quite true. For example, exercise kills muscle cells which are replaced by new cells, and more of them, making muscle tissue stronger. People who do lots of exercise live longer and stay healthier, despite the replacement of cells.

Of course, there are lots of quack claims about boosting the immune system which do not work. But vaccines do work.

There is zero evidence that more repair increases decrepitude. For example, people who do physical work age better than those who are sedentary. Yet those more physical people will inevitably suffer more minor injuries. It is also true that blood donors on average, live longer and are healthier than non donors. Giving blood involves a minor injury, and requires repair, in that more red blood cells must be made.

You have a poor idea of biology, landrew, if you think using the body harms it. The rule for living things is that using the body more makes it better.
Then maybe I should give back both my science degrees. I've got six years of study and a lifelong career to stake it on. What are your credentials?
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13199
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:27 am

I have my degree in biology and a lifetime of reading science. It appears that my understanding of biology is somewhat more sophisticated than yours. You appear to be falling for the "old car" fallacy. That is, assuming that the human body is like an old car that wears out faster the more it is used. But the human body operates on a continuous adaptation model, in which the bits that are used most are strongest.

No one fully understands what causes aging and decrepitude, but what is clear is that the best way to postpone that is to use what you have. Muscles that are exercised last longer. A brain that is constantly stimulated is less prone to Alzheimers. An immune system that is stimulated by vaccines works better.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11318
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Mon Jul 15, 2019 5:42 pm

This is not a pissing contest.
I believe the trend has been towards a scientific consensus that suggests there's nothing beneficial about radiation in any dosage. It's this movement of opinion, together with my knowledge of the mode of action of radiation that informs my opinion on the matter.

But you could be forgiven for choosing the less-likely option in lieu of conclusive proof. If you had been a scientist in 1860, you may have chosen Lamarckism over Darwinism as an explanation for evolution, because at the time, there was little experimental evidence for either, compared to the anecdotal evidence that was used to support both theories. Since that time, the movement of opinion has been decidedly towards Darwinism, which few people nowadays would dispute. I'm seeing the same type of movement away from the notion that low-dose radiation has significant health benefits.

I think you're counting "benefits" that aren't really benefits at all. Scores of naturopathic supplements claim to "boost" the immune system, but they are actually mild toxins, which cause the body to react. That's like saying house fires are good because they give the firemen exercise. Radiation in any dose simply kills cells instantaneously, and the body reacts in many ways to heal the damage, but those aren't real health benefits. When dead cells are replaced, the new cells contain more genetic errors than their progenitors, therefore the long-term result of radiation is sicker cells, with an increased risk of cancer. The science fully supports this. That's why no one recommends sun tanning anymore. The benefits don't outweigh the risks.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13199
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:13 pm

Landrew

You are ignoring the empirical data, which I have posted. Laboratory studies show clearly that low dose radiation has benefits to various organisms. The only controversy relates to humans. Because we cannot carry out radiation exposure experiments on humans, there is still doubt about the low level effects. That is despite some epidemiological evidence of benefits, which I have already posted.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11318
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:24 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:13 pm
Landrew

You are ignoring the empirical data, which I have posted. Laboratory studies show clearly that low dose radiation has benefits to various organisms. The only controversy relates to humans. Because we cannot carry out radiation exposure experiments on humans, there is still doubt about the low level effects. That is despite some epidemiological evidence of benefits, which I have already posted.
There's always data supporting both sides until one side overwhelms the other, as it did with Darwinism. Your side has not yet been thoroughly refuted. Neither has mine to be fair, but I have given my two main reasons for why I choose the side which does not believe radiation at any dose is healthy. I believe the perceived benefits of radiation are illusory. I don't need to repeat my reasons for believing so.

Radiation is "being shot" at the cellular level. You can always find some benefits to being shot, such as time away from the war, less chance of being killed, meeting a cute nurse, learning how to play chess in your idle time, but you can't say that being shot is a health benefit. All your examples look like that sort of thing to me, silly nonsense.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13199
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:11 pm

Yet the data shows you are wrong. Hiroshima survivors who received less than 100 millisieverts had a life time risk of cancer no greater than those of the rest of Japan. Ramsa peoples exposed to an average of 250 millisieverts per year have lower levels of mutation than the peoples of the rest of Iran. People living in the mountains of Colorado exposed to 80 millisieverts of radiation per year (mainly from the granite rocks all round them) have lower cancer rates than peoples living on the prairies exposed to 3 millisieverts per year.

We know from basic biology that minor damage does not translate into long term harm. Minor damage heals. This is true for low level radiation. If, like those Hiroshima survivors, you get less than 100 millisieverts of radiation, the damage heals and there is no long term harm.

This is not even controversial. What is controversial is the idea that low level radiation leads to a stimulus of those healing processes, and a degree of resistance to cancer. This has been shown clearly in the laboratory for other organisms, like mice (see my earlier reference). The reason it is controversial for humans is simply than we cannot do radiation experiments on people.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11318
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:34 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:11 pm
Yet the data shows you are wrong. Hiroshima survivors who received less than 100 millisieverts had a life time risk of cancer no greater than those of the rest of Japan. Ramsa peoples exposed to an average of 250 millisieverts per year have lower levels of mutation than the peoples of the rest of Iran. People living in the mountains of Colorado exposed to 80 millisieverts of radiation per year (mainly from the granite rocks all round them) have lower cancer rates than peoples living on the prairies exposed to 3 millisieverts per year.

We know from basic biology that minor damage does not translate into long term harm. Minor damage heals. This is true for low level radiation. If, like those Hiroshima survivors, you get less than 100 millisieverts of radiation, the damage heals and there is no long term harm.

This is not even controversial. What is controversial is the idea that low level radiation leads to a stimulus of those healing processes, and a degree of resistance to cancer. This has been shown clearly in the laboratory for other organisms, like mice (see my earlier reference). The reason it is controversial for humans is simply than we cannot do radiation experiments on people.
You can stay on that bandwagon for as long as you like, but I'm with those who understand that radiation is a purely destructive force on the body.

If you were correct, a long-term study involving organisms deeply shielded from all radiation vs. organisms exposed to normal radiation would yield empirical data showing that exposure to radiation resulted in better health. I don't think anything like that has been replicated to show conclusive evidence.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13199
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:54 pm

There are, in fact, a number of studies on laboratory organisms showing exposure to low levels of radiation lead to longer life spans. Just not on humans.

The thing is, landrew, that my posts here are based on good scientific data, whereas you are just expressing an opinion based on your own version of logic. Sadly, logic is not science. In fact, a too strong belief in the power of logic (along with the distortion of religion) has held back developments in what we now call science for 2,000 years. The ancient Greeks promoted logic, and for 2,000 years there was little or no development in our understanding of the universe. Only after logic was bypassed for actual data gathering, did science take off.

http://m.tech.snmjournals.org/content/43/4/242.full

The above article describes the case for and against radiation hormesis. It refers to studies with unequivocal positive results. For example, seeds exposed to radiation grow with greater vigor. One study showed that people exposed to radon gas lived longer than those not. Numerous other studies on laboratory organisms show a positive result. On the other hand, a few epidemiological studies on humans are not considered by many scientists to be sufficiently convincing, meaning the idea is controversial for humans.

My overall point is to suggest you junk your misleading "logic" and go with the data.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11318
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:10 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:54 pm
There are, in fact, a number of studies on laboratory organisms showing exposure to low levels of radiation lead to longer life spans. Just not on humans.

The thing is, landrew, that my posts here are based on good scientific data, whereas you are just expressing an opinion based on your own version of logic. Sadly, logic is not science. In fact, a too strong belief in the power of logic (along with the distortion of religion) has held back developments in what we now call science for 2,000 years. The ancient Greeks promoted logic, and for 2,000 years there was little or no development in our understanding of the universe. Only after logic was bypassed for actual data gathering, did science take off.

http://m.tech.snmjournals.org/content/43/4/242.full

The above article describes the case for and against radiation hormesis. It refers to studies with unequivocal positive results. For example, seeds exposed to radiation grow with greater vigor. One study showed that people exposed to radon gas lived longer than those not. Numerous other studies on laboratory organisms show a positive result. On the other hand, a few epidemiological studies on humans are not considered by many scientists to be sufficiently convincing, meaning the idea is controversial for humans.

My overall point is to suggest you junk your misleading "logic" and go with the data.
Well, it's obvious you'd like it to be settled, but my money's on the other horse.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13199
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:09 am

Yes, but the basis of that bet is opinion unsupported by data.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11318
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:18 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:09 am
Yes, but the basis of that bet is opinion unsupported by data.
You're saying I shouldn't bother with all my evaluation work and just follow your lead?
No thanks, I'm still betting I'm on the right track.
Let me know when the science is declared "settled."
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13199
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:40 am

What I am saying, landrew, is to go with the scientific data. Not an opinion.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11318
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Wed Jul 17, 2019 4:02 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:40 am
What I am saying, landrew, is to go with the scientific data. Not an opinion.
Everyone says that, even the fraudsters. Someone is always producing data to prove their preconceived conclusions.
To be scientific is to set aside your conclusions and weigh all existing data.
I see a strong bias by many people to believe somehow that "if a lot is bad, a little is good." That holds true for some things but not others. The body is slowly destroyed by entropy over time, and certain things like benzene and radiation cause damage to cells instantaneously. It's a false analogy to compare it to a flu virus, which when it enters the body in small amounts, it programs the immune system to destroy future infections of the virus. You can also build up a tolerance to some types of toxins, which the body learns to tackle and remove before it can cause harm. That's a case where "a little is good." Radiation only creates irreversible entropy.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13199
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Jul 17, 2019 5:42 am

Radiation causes the same problem as a cut. It heals. Some damage appears to help. Blood donors are healthier and live longer than non donors. This may be because the repair mechanisms of the body that are required to replace blood are strengthened. Exercising muscles kills muscle cells, but the muscles grow bigger.

You are still trapped in your old car fallacy. The human body adjusts to stress and repairs damage. Aging is not damage. No one quite knows what it is, but it resembles a programmed shut down more than simple damage.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11318
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Thu Jul 18, 2019 5:36 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Wed Jul 17, 2019 5:42 am
Radiation causes the same problem as a cut. It heals. Some damage appears to help. Blood donors are healthier and live longer than non donors. This may be because the repair mechanisms of the body that are required to replace blood are strengthened. Exercising muscles kills muscle cells, but the muscles grow bigger.

You are still trapped in your old car fallacy. The human body adjusts to stress and repairs damage. Aging is not damage. No one quite knows what it is, but it resembles a programmed shut down more than simple damage.
Cuts leave scars. Scar tissue is inferior to the tissue it replaced. There's no way to turn it to make this type of damage beneficial. Exercise tears muscles, causing the muscles to strengthen. Exposure to viral infections programs our immune response to repel them in the future.

But you are conflating two types of stress. The good stress causes the body to respond and strengthen. The bad stress only causes incremental damage. You really need to be able to separate the two.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13199
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Jul 18, 2019 8:37 pm

Landrew.

News for you. There is no such thing as "good stress" or "bad stress". There is only stress. Whether it results in a useful change to the body or not is a function of how the body works. I run around barefoot a lot, including over stones. The soles of my feet are well calloused. Is this good stress or bad stress? Actually, it is neither.

All organisms respond to stress. A tree growing inside a forest has a thin trunk and grows tall to get the light. A tree of the same species growing at the edge of the forest does not grow as tall, but has a thicker trunk to withstand stronger winds. It is just acclimation, neither good or bad.

All life has been exposed to radiation for the whole 4 billion years (plus or minus a few hundred million) that life has existed on planet Earth. In fact, early on, the radiation was stronger. So life, including our ancestors, had to adapt to radiation. Some of that life lived under low radiation conditions, like anything on flat grassland, while some was under much higher natural radiation, like life growing on granite surfaces. So the evolved adaptation had to be flexible, able to handle a range. It is totally reasonable to suggest that the adaptation was flexible, and able to acclimate to the degree of radiation, like the callouses on my feet which become thicker or thinner depending on how much stress.

We even know the mechanism. It appears that programmed cell suicide is important. Exposure to radiation increases this tendency, thus removing incipient cancer cells, and making the body more resistant to cancer.

There was an item in the latest New Scientist, 13 July page 9, about astronauts which surprised me. After a detailed study of 418 returned astronauts, some American and some Russian, it turns out that there is no sign of increased cancer rates. This surprises me since the exposure to radiation in space is two sieverts per year, which means even a short time in space means significant exposure. I expected that to overcome any hormesis effect, and lead to more cancer. Certainly their dose was too much for hormesis, but apparently not enough to cause more cancer.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11318
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:05 pm

The deeper I investigate radiation hormensis, the more I'm convinced that it's only detrimental in an incremental way.
It would go the other direction if you were right.

There's no possible explanation that could account for some sort of "improvement" to the body after catastrophic cell damage. Somatic cells degrade over time as they repair and replicate, each time with additional errors. Short-term effects can be mistaken as beneficial, but they aren't being weighed against the long-term negative effects. I'm quite sure the science will eventually wean itself from its wishful thinking about radiation hormensis.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13199
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:19 pm

It is not catastrophic cell damage, landrew. It happens only with minimal radiation, and the cell damage is minor. Cells are dying all the time. Some killed by age, some by chemicals (the biggest cause of cell death is actually oxygen), and some by radiation. Cell death is compensated for by new cell growth. This is nothing new. Old stuff for anyone who, as you claim for yourself, has a basic understanding of biology.

The examples of minor stress resulting in body changes to adjust to the stress are legion. There is nothing startling about radiation being one of them, since it is ubiquitous and has been since the first life appeared. Caenorhrabditis is a nematode worm with a very short life span, and is one of the most commonly used laboratory experiment subjects. Researchers took two groups, and subjected one to low level radiation. That group had a statistically significant increase in life span. In fact, there are dozens of such experiments done. Enough to put the existence of radiation hormesis beyond reasonable doubt. Doubt exists only for radiation hormesis in humans, since we cannot do such experiments on people.

But there is still a lot of less convincing evidence that it is also true for humans, from surveys and observations. For example, less cancer among ship builders working on nuclear ships, and receiving more radiation, compared to those who work on conventional ships.

I admit it is not proven beyond reasonable doubt for humans, but it definitely is for other organisms, and it would be weird if it did not work for humans only.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11318
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Fri Jul 19, 2019 3:20 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:19 pm
It is not catastrophic cell damage, landrew. It happens only with minimal radiation, and the cell damage is minor. Cells are dying all the time. Some killed by age, some by chemicals (the biggest cause of cell death is actually oxygen), and some by radiation. Cell death is compensated for by new cell growth. This is nothing new. Old stuff for anyone who, as you claim for yourself, has a basic understanding of biology.

The examples of minor stress resulting in body changes to adjust to the stress are legion. There is nothing startling about radiation being one of them, since it is ubiquitous and has been since the first life appeared. Caenorhrabditis is a nematode worm with a very short life span, and is one of the most commonly used laboratory experiment subjects. Researchers took two groups, and subjected one to low level radiation. That group had a statistically significant increase in life span. In fact, there are dozens of such experiments done. Enough to put the existence of radiation hormesis beyond reasonable doubt. Doubt exists only for radiation hormesis in humans, since we cannot do such experiments on people.

But there is still a lot of less convincing evidence that it is also true for humans, from surveys and observations. For example, less cancer among ship builders working on nuclear ships, and receiving more radiation, compared to those who work on conventional ships.

I admit it is not proven beyond reasonable doubt for humans, but it definitely is for other organisms, and it would be weird if it did not work for humans only.
It depends on the dose, but the effect is always catastrophic at the cellular level. A little radiation or a lot, the effects differ only by degree. A dose that might be fatal in one day, spread out over 30 years may not be immediately fatal, but the incremental damage amounts to the same. The healing begins immediately, but the repair is never as good as the original. Eventually the body succumbs to all the entropy.
Semantics don't change the actual facts.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13199
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chernobyl

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Jul 19, 2019 8:00 pm

Pure coincidence. But today's sciencedaily (www.sciencedaily.com) has an item on research results that show mouse oesophagoel cells becoming cancer resistant after exposure to an antioxidant and radiation equivalent to three CT scans (generally considered to be safe). No such resistance occurred with the antioxidant alone.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11318
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Chernobyl

Post by landrew » Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:28 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 8:00 pm
Pure coincidence. But today's sciencedaily (www.sciencedaily.com) has an item on research results that show mouse oesophagoel cells becoming cancer resistant after exposure to an antioxidant and radiation equivalent to three CT scans (generally considered to be safe). No such resistance occurred with the antioxidant alone.
Have you noticed how dental assistants put on lead shielding and go into the next room when they're giving you a dental x-ray? All that for a weak pulse that lasts a few milliseconds and is directed in a very specific beam.

Not exactly consistent with the notion of a "safe dose."
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.