The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it. ... In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell

Saturday, April 30, 2011

Low-level ionising radiation protects against cancer!



The projections of thousands of late cancer deaths based on LNT, are in conflict with observations that in comparison with general population of Russia, a 15% to 30% deficit of solid cancer mortality was found among the Russian emergency workers, and a 5% deficit solid cancer incidence among the population of most contaminated areas.

Paper :   
Observations on the Chernobyl Disaster and LNT. (thanks Peter for pointing it out)

LNT stands for "Linear Non-Threshold" hypothesis that postulates that no matter how low level of radiation, its harmful effects accumulate and add up over time.

This and other papers posted in this blog ( Gamma radiation protects against cancer, in low doses seems to indicate that this theory is dead.


Peter said...

Hi Stan,

The BBC documentary did not quite go as far as Jaworowski, but came close. The thyroid cancer increase was not accepted as better detection, but when local experts were pushed to suggest how many extra thyroid carcinoma deaths had occurred in the highly contaminated areas they were pretty confident there were a total of six. Incidence was sigificantly increased for a few years but a marked %age increase of a very small number still gives a very small number...

Personally I was more concerned that Chernobyl might have been going to be far more of a problem than the Taiwan Co60 episode as there would be particulate contact after Chernobyl vs diffuse gamma irradiation in the flats, ie certain tissues might have had a locally supra hormetic dose from an ingested particle of debris. Doesn't look that way.

Certainly makes me feel more relaxed about living with Sizewell B on our doorstep.

I would absolutely accept that being somewhere other than Hiroshima when the first atomic bomb exploded would have been a good idea.


mypetisevil said...

Hi Peter,

I was listening to that documentary and I think it had a distinct BBC washed-out watery feel.

There was something missing - they did not quite explore the "man bit a dog factor".

On the other hand that's what probably makes them generally more objective, relatively. Problem with that is, if you interview for example 2 people who do not have a clue or do not tell the truth and 1 who does, the average is still a lie. They should have shown the data rather then talk but then it wouldn't have made a good radio program.


Stan (Heretic) said...

Re: "Mypetisevil" - not quite that evil. This was my daughter Cecylia's login, I didn't notice she was already logged-in to Google. Sorry,

Stan (Heretic)


Peter said...

Hee hee, have been caught out like that in the past...


Stan (Heretic) said...

We have 4 girls and they have taken over all my computers! 8-:(

dav0 said...

Just like to alert you to a new book: Radiation Hormesis and
the Linear-No-Threshold
Assumption by Charles L. Sanders published by Springer. It's full of references and also includes a paragraph on the Taiwan Co60 episode. Very interesting. David