OT but interesting: a paper on the risks from low-dose radiation

On 05/05/2012 09:05, Steve Thackery wrote:
Andy Champ wrote:

It suggests that the linear no threshold model is indeed wrong. But
much to my surprise, it seems low doses are _less_ safe pro rata than
higher ones.

How very bizarre. Bizarre because only a couple of years ago I saw a
programme on TV (Horizon, maybe? - some other reasonably respected
science programme anyway) where it also said the "linear no threshold"
model is wrong, but in exactly the opposite way!

In other words, below a certain threshold the cancer risk drops straight
down to zero.

The theory of hormesis is that low doses may actually be beneficial.
This article discusses the whole idea of hormesis in a number of
different areas:

http://gettingstronger.org/hormesis/

This one goes into more detail about radiation hormesis:

http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/inthorm.html

Certainly people living in areas with naturally high background levels
of radiation do not exhibit anything like the amount of cancer that the
LNT model suggests.

Colin Bignell

On Sunday, May 6th, 2012, at 17:17:54h +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

There are plenty of non autistic and non down sydrome imbeciles.

True, maybe they should be culled as well.

A certain member of this newsgroup keeps advocating a need to
drastically reduce the population so one must start somewhere.

Perhaps all those with IQ less than the average?

And instead of wasting the animal protein, it could be
fed to beef cattle or the pigs?

J G Miller wrote:
On Sunday, May 6th, 2012, at 17:17:54h +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

There are plenty of non autistic and non down sydrome imbeciles.

True, maybe they should be culled as well.

A certain member of this newsgroup keeps advocating a need to
drastically reduce the population so one must start somewhere.

Perhaps all those with IQ less than the average?

And instead of wasting the animal protein, it could be
fed to beef cattle or the pigs?


Eugenics rears its ugly head..

The problem is, when Nature or God dictates who survives, no one need
address the moral question...

....start having people making that decision and OUCH its all third Reich
time again.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Steve Firth wrote
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote
Steve Firth wrote

Much of this research was ignored because it was considered racist to
suggest that there could be variations in nutrition associated with
country of origin or culture. There's Canadian research that shows that
even among individuals originating from the Punjab who spend time in the
open air and expose themselves to sunlight that their serum vitamin D
levels are below those of a control group of white individuals, which
gives a strong indication that diet is playing a significant role.

What is sad is that concerns of political correctness have ensure
that little research is done on the subject and that almost no
action is taken to correct the problem.

Jeezus, what kind of wooly-minded ****** would
consider such research or conclusions racist?

Largely the woolly minded editorial panels of peer-reviewed journals
that tend to reject papers that have a perceived racial or ethnic element.

Its normally self censorship, most obvious with racial bias in IQ etc.

There also used to be great difficulty publishing papers that
demonstrated that some national groups have differences in
liver enzymes that affect how they metabolise drugs. The
observation is non-controversial when applied to mice - I spent
some of my early career documenting the differences in liver
enzymes between different strains of mice - and very controversial
when applied to humans. The science is the same; the only difference
is in the mind of the reviewer.

The reasons are probably down to the racist use of genetics in the
1930s to 1950s when science was warped to fit a clearly racist agenda.

And with eugenics.

Genetics has a particularly unpleasant history, having being used to
support discrimination against blacks, extermination of the "feeble
minded" and of course the holocaust. So it's perhaps understandable
why the editors tend to be a bit sensitive. However they take it way
too far and in consequence are suppressing research that is intended
to aid the people that the editors think they are protecting.

Nightjar wrote
Steve Thackery wrote
Andy Champ wrote

It suggests that the linear no threshold model is indeed wrong. But
much to my surprise, it seems low doses are _less_ safe pro rata than
higher ones.

How very bizarre. Bizarre because only a couple of years ago I saw a
programme on TV (Horizon, maybe? - some other reasonably respected
science programme anyway) where it also said the "linear no threshold"
model is wrong, but in exactly the opposite way!

In other words, below a certain threshold the cancer risk drops straight
down to zero.

The theory of hormesis is that low doses may actually be beneficial.

More accurately that they don't necessarily match the higher dose effect.

This article discusses the whole idea of hormesis in a number of
different areas:

http://gettingstronger.org/hormesis/

This one goes into more detail about radiation hormesis:

http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/inthorm.html

That's still controversial and unproven
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis#Controversy

Certainly people living in areas with naturally high
background levels of radiation do not exhibit anything
like the amount of cancer that the LNT model suggests.

But that may be due to other effects, because cancer incidence
does vary so widely due to all sorts of other effects too.

En el artículo , J G Miller
escribió:

Best to kill 'em before they have even been born, eh?

Best to leave the choice to the parents IMO, i.e. the people that are
going to have to live with and care for the child.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

En el artículo , J G Miller
escribió:

And instead of wasting the animal protein, it could be
fed to beef cattle or the pigs?

A dead cert for re-introducing BSE (or in this case denSE or rodSE) into
the food chain.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

J G Miller wrote:

Best to kill 'em before they have even been born, eh?

The fact is that when a couple have a badly disabled child they often
don't complete their family, because of the stresses of looking after
the disabled one and fear of having another. So abortion can give life.

Bill

J G Miller wrote:

A certain member of this newsgroup keeps advocating a need to
drastically reduce the population so one must start somewhere.

Perhaps all those with IQ less than the average?

That might not increase the sum of human happiness. Highly intelligent
people aren't any happier than, say, me.

Bill

In message , Steve Firth
writes
harry wrote:

I thought

There's a first time for everything.

Thats Harry AND Dennis both had a go at thinking


Dangerous times, dangerous times


--
geoff