TAKE THESE THREE PEER-REVIEWED STUDIES AND SHOVE THEM UP YOUR NOSES, HORMESIS THEORISTS!
Hormesis is PROVEN to be a flawed-beyond-hope theory.
IN THESE 3 STUDIES, WE SEE THAT, NOT ONLY DOES CHRONIC LOW-DOSE RADIATION CAUSE MORE BLINDNESS BY CATARACT FORMATION , IT OBVIOUSLY 'SEEMS' TO CAUSE ANIMALS AND HUMANS TO (1) PRODUCE FEWER OFFSPRING (as many studies have shown before), (2) AGE MORE QUICKLY (but we already knew that by the effects on human aging by solar radiation) , AND (3) DEVELOP MORE CANCERS (as even the original Manhattan Project scientists have said, regretfully).
FIRST AND OLDEST STUDY OF THE THREE, OCTOBER, 2015:
FROM THE BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
"Ionizing radiation is an established cause of cancer, but information on radiation risk has come mainly from studies of people exposed to acute, high doses of ionizing radiation, such as Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Research into associations between exposure to moderate or low dose radiation and risk of cancer began in the 1950s.
The results suggest a linear increase in the relative rate of cancer with increasing radiation exposure and strengthen the scientific basis for current radiation protection standards.
The study involved 308,297 nuclear industry workers from France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The workers, most of whom were men, were monitored for external radiation exposure, and were followed-up for an average of 27 years.
Risk estimates were then calculated for deaths from all cancers excluding leukemia. Factors such as age, duration of employment, and socioeconomic status were taken into account.
The estimated rate of mortality from all cancers excluding leukemia increased with cumulative dose by 48% per gray (Gy). Similar associations were found within each country. Based on these estimates, the researchers suggest that about 209 of the 19,064 observed deaths due to cancer other than leukemia were excess deaths associated with external radiation exposure.
The risk per unit dose was similar to estimates derived from studies of Japanese atomic bomb survivors, note the researchers, contrary to the belief that high dose rate exposures are more dangerous than low dose rate exposures.
This study provides evidence of a linear increase in the excess relative rate of cancer mortality with increasing exposure to ionizing radiation at the low dose rates typically encountered in the nuclear industries in France, the UK, and the USA," they write. The findings can also help strengthen the foundation for radiation protection standards, they conclude.
This study "adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting associations between exposure to moderate or low dose radiation and risk of cancer," writes Mark Little from the US National Cancer Institute, in an accompanying editorial."
SECOND STUDY:
JUST PUBLISHED OCTOBER 3, 2019, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
"High energy radiation damages DNA and causes cancer.
Even transient exposures, of the sort experienced during diagnostic radiographs, are potentially harmful.
In a population based study of more than 12 million South Koreans aged 0 to 19, the incidence of cancer was 60% higher among those who had been exposed to diagnostic radiation than among those who hadn’t been exposed (JAMA Netw Open doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.10584).
THIRD STUDY:
FROM A 2016 PUBLISHED CHERNOBYL DISASTER STUDY
"New research now suggests that chronic exposure to low radiation can cause damage to the eyes of wild animals. This is shown in an international study led by researchers Philipp Lehmann and Tapio Mappes from the University of Jyväskylä, Finland, which recently was published in the journal Scientific Reports.
Cataract frequency increased with age in the voles, similarly as in humans generally. In addition, the effects of aging intensified as a result of elevated radiation.
Interestingly the effect of radiation was significant only in female voles.
Also in humans there are indications for high radiosensitivity of lenses. Persons with occupational exposure to radiation, such as radiology nurses, nuclear power plant workers and airline pilots have increased risk of cataract, but potential gender differences in radiosensitivity should be further studied.
Reasons for the gender differences in wild mammals are still largely hypothetical. However, the present study suggests that increased cataract risk may be associated with reproduction, as female bank voles who had severe cataracts received fewer offspring. Whether poorer reproductive success was caused by cataracts or by radiation is still unclear, and will require further experimental studies.
Nevertheless these new results support observations of negative consequences of chronic exposure to low radiation on wild animals and whole ecosystems.
Studying effects of chronic exposure to low radiation in natural ecosystems is highly important, as it will help to prepare for new nuclear accidents and predict their consequences, which can entail widespread effects that can persist for hundreds of years in nature."
THAT THERE IS NO SAFE DOSE OF RADIATION HAS BEEN PROVEN AND RE-PROVEN FOR OVER 70 YEARS.
THE LOWEST AMOUNT, EVEN ONE TRACK , OF IONIZING RADIATION THROUGH A LIVING ORGANISM, CAN LEAD TO DAMAGE WHICH CAN THEN LEAD TO FATALITY.
The pioneering work of Muller, Sax, and McClintock, and many others, has stood the test of time. (PDF)
The idea that x-rays could damage the genetic material and result in interactions that could lead to gene mutations and a range of chromosomal alterations is now interpretable in terms of induced DNA damage and errors of DNA repair.
The introduction of the concept of one- and two-track processes for the induction of genetic alterations by low LET radiations remains the foundation of the dose-response curve for such alterations and provides the explanation for the responses following fractionated and chronic exposures—namely, linearity, even at low doses.
The remarkable detail afforded by the more recent molecular biology techniques has served to confirm these foundations."
NO RADIATION DOSE IS TOO SMALL THAT IT WILL NEVER CAUSE DAMAGE.
"The 'linear no threshold' (LNT) model is the best we can do today.
The requirement for a dose-response model to be used for risk assessment purposes is that it fits the great majority of data derived from epidemiological and experimental tumor studies. Such is the case for the LNT model as opposed to other nonlinear models.
This view is supported by data developed for radiation-induced mutations and chromosome aberrations."
Hormesis is a flawed theory.
Traditional high dose testing will miss many low dose adverse effects.
by John Peterson Myers
Environmental Health Sciences
Low doses can have impacts that can't be predicted from high dose experiments.
How can exposure to something that isn't overtly toxic be a problem?
Altered gene expression in development changes the path taken by the developing organism.
A good example is work by Ho et al. on how exposure to bisphenol A during development causes prostate cancer in adult rats.
At birth there is nothing obviously wrong with the rat, but by adulthood it is at high risk to prostate cancer. According to Ho et al., the low dose of bisphenol A prevents a gene from shutting down, something Calabrese would regard as stimulatory because this gene is involved in promoting cell division.
Think of it this way. If you were a pilot steering a boat from New York to London, it would be toxic if someone blew up your engine.
But if they altered the compass so that it led you 3 degrees off course from the very start of the trip, by the time you reached Europe you'd be on the shores of France. Small shifts in the course of development can have profoundly adverse impacts even though they may not be overtly toxic at the time of exposure.
Welshon's et al. have presented a detailed analyses at the molecular level on how low dose impacts can't be predicted from high dose experiments.
The low dose increases in gene expression can take place at exposure levels millions of times lower than those required to cause over toxicity.
Calabrese would look at a pattern like this and see low dose stimulation and high dose toxicity: hormesis. The problem with his interpretation is the hundred-plus studies demonstrating adverse effects of BPA at low levels of exposure. Turning on estrogen-responsive genes at times during development when they are not supposed to turn on affects many tissues adversely, and in animal experiments causes prostate cancer (in adulthood after exposure in the womb), increases the risk of breast cancer, defeminizes female brain structures, masculinizes female behavior, induces insulin resistance, etc.
Calabrese's argument that low dose stimulation is beneficial ignores the larger biological point that stimulation that is not part of the normal program in development is likely to lead to problems.
Stimulate cell proliferation and you risk cancer.
Stimulate the immune system and you risk a hyperallergenic response.
This is especially relevant in a world in which hyper-reactive immune systems are tied to asthma, auto-immune diseases, eczema, etc.
Bottom line: the notion that widespread observations of hormetic responses justifies weakening health standards is naive and wrong. Calabrese is right that current regulations should recognize the ubiquity of non-monotonic dose response system.
But the appropriate response to this observation is not to weaken standards but to strengthen them, because the adverse impacts of low dose stimulation of gene expression can't be predicted by today's regulatory testing."
AHHHH, LOGIC, LONG-TERM STUDIES AND FACTS, HOW WONDERFUL TO KNOW THEY STILL EXIST!
NO RADIATION IS HARMLESS.
PERIOD, THE END.
_____________________________
MORE INFO:
Transport. The good the bad and the ugly. How radiation infiltrates your body.
The functions of living tissue are carried out by molecules, that is, combinations of different types of atoms united by chemical bonds. The proper functioning of these molecules depends upon their composition and also their structure. Altering chemical bonds may change composition or structure. Ionizing radiation is powerful enough to do this. There are several ways that radiation physically interacts with your body.
#1: Inhalation
As radon itself decays, it produces new radioactive elements called radon daughters or decay products. Unlike the gaseous radon itself, radon daughters are solids and stick to surfaces, such as dust particles in the air. If such contaminated dust is inhaled, these particles can stick to the airways of the lung and increase the risk of developing lung cancer.
#2: Direct action
Keep in mind that ionizing radiation emits small particles that can pass right through your body, and occasionally collide with one of the particles around an atom in your body. Ionizing radiation, by definition, "ionizes," that is, it pushes an electron out of its orbit around an atomic nucleus, causing the formation of electrical charges on atoms or molecules. If this electron comes from the DNA itself or from a neighboring molecule and directly strikes and disrupts the DNA molecule, the effect is called direct action.
#3: Indirect action
It is currently thought that most damage from radiation comes from indirect action. That is, instead of string your DNA itself, a particle hits a water molecule and ionizes it producing what is known as a free radical. A free radical reacts very strongly with other molecules as it seeks to restore a stable configuration of electrons. This in turn can damage DNA and lead to mutations and cell death.
Mutations in a cell's DNA and reproductive mechanisms are what can eventually lead to cancer.
Bioavailability
Radioactivity or the strength of radioactive source is measured in units of becquerel (Bq).
1 Bq = 1 event of radiation emission per second.
Radiation is all around us and it comes from so many sources that there really is no escaping it. We can define how much a particular radioactive source is exposing us to radiation by examining its 'absorbed dose. Absorbed dose describes the amount of radiation absorbed by an object or person (that is, the amount of energy that radioactive sources deposit in materials through which they pass). The units for absorbed dose are the radiation absorbed dose (rad) and gray (Gy). 1 Gy = 100 rads.
Equal doses of all types of ionizing radiation are not equally harmful. Alpha particles produce greater harm than do beta particles, gamma rays and x rays for a given absorbed dose.
BIOACCUMULATION BY FOOD CHAIN
EVERYTHING WE CONSUME (FOOD OR LIQUIDS), EVERYTHING WE INHALE, EVERY MINUTE WE SPEND OUTDOORS IN THE SUN, EVERY RADIATION-EMITTING OBJECT WE COME NEAR, EVEN THE ELEVATION AT WHICH WE LIVE, THE TYPE MATERIALS USED TO CONSTRUCT OUR HOMES, ALL OF IT, ADDS UP, ACCUMULATES IN OUR TISSUES.
THIS IS CALLED BIOACCUMULATION.
PLEASE READ AN AUSTRALIAN STUDY ON BIOACCUMULATION BY ABORIGINAL PEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA <HERE>.
IT APPLIES SIMILARLY TO ALL OF US.
ALSO SEE:
Bioaccumulation & Biomagnification
You can ROUGHLY calculate your radiation dose per year <HERE>.
//WW
No comments:
Post a Comment