The Fringe | Conspiracy, News, Politics, and Fun Forum!

Full Version: Low dose radiation is good for you.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
This is a must read if you are sick of the LNT theory which has been weaponized against everything that helps humanity.

The survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have lived longer lives in better health than those of the population who didn't get a dose. Don't confuse this with high dose radiation which is bad but it makes inroads in debunking the LNT theory that any dose is a bad dose. This is the same technique that activists use to demonize all sorts of chemicals in their retarded crusade to send us back to the dark ages.

https://junkscience.com/wp-content/uploa...0114-3.pdf

Low-dose radiation from A-bombs elongated lifespan and reduced cancer mortality relative to un-irradiated individuals

Quote:Abstract
The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) presented the linear no-threshold hypothesis (LNT) in 1956, which
indicates that the lowest doses of ionizing radiation are hazardous in proportion to the dose. This spurious
hypothesis was not based on solid data. NAS put forward the BEIR VII report in 2006 as evidence supporting LNT.
The study described in the report used data of the Life Span Study (LSS) of A-bomb survivors. Estimation of
exposure doses was based on initial radiation (5%) and neglected residual radiation (10%), leading to
underestimation of the doses. Residual radiation mainly consisted of fallout that poured down onto the ground
along with black rain. The black-rain-affected areas were wide. Not only A-bomb survivors but also not-in-the-city
control subjects (NIC) must have been exposed to residual radiation to a greater or lesser degree. Use of NIC as
negative controls constitutes a major failure in analyses of LSS. Another failure of LSS is its neglect of radiation
adaptive responses which include low-dose stimulation of DNA damage repair, removal of aberrant cells via
stimulated apoptosis, and elimination of cancer cells via stimulated anticancer immunity. LSS never incorporates
consideration of this possibility. When LSS data of longevity are examined, a clear J-shaped dose-response, a
hallmark of radiation hormesis, is apparent. Both A-bomb survivors and NIC showed longer than average lifespans.
Average solid cancer death ratios of both A-bomb survivors and NIC were lower than the average for Japanese
people, which is consistent with the occurrence of radiation adaptive responses (the bases for radiation hormesis),
essentially invalidating the LNT model. Nevertheless, LNT has served as the basis of radiation regulation policy. If it
were not for LNT, tremendous human, social, and economic losses would not have occurred in the aftermath of
the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant accident. For many reasons, LNT must be revised or abolished, with changes
based not on policy but on science.
Keywords: A-bomb survivors, Lifespan, Life Span Study, Linear no-threshold, LNT, Longevity, Residual radiation,
Threshold
Banannas are radioactive

Trippynana
My Dad got his back broke when a hay truck tipped over on him, he was riding on the running board. My grandfather lifted the truck off of him, so they could pull him out. He was a junior in high school. Later in life,he had low dose radiation done on his back, and he never had back pain. There is something to this! V6sRZf4
(01-19-2019, 10:49 PM)PickleSnout Wrote: [ -> ]Banannas are radioactive

Trippynana

So is the earth itself.
So does seawater and the oceans.
Therefore, so does the entire planet.
Quite naturally.

Guest

Has no one asked themselves why people can live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to this day?

What kind of experimental stuff did they do to the places and people when we are told the earth would be radioactive for thousands of years after a nuke war and uninhabitable.
Yet things still grow at Chernobyl.

How does plastic suits stop radioactivity for Nuke Plant workers?
What kind of Plastic can do that when we are told it takes 10 meters of concrete?

How many lies did they tell us in school?
(01-19-2019, 11:04 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]Has no one asked themselves why people can live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to this day?

What kind of experimental stuff did they do to the places and people when we are told the earth would be radioactive for thousands of years after a nuke war and uninhabitable.
Yet things still grow at Chernobyl.

How does plastic suits stop radioactivity for Nuke Plant workers?
What kind of Plastic can do that when we are told it takes 10 meters of concrete?

How many lies did they tell us in school?

Everything grows large when grown in mild low dose radiation.
(01-19-2019, 09:19 PM)dazedb42 Wrote: [ -> ]This is a must read if you are sick of the LNT theory which has been weaponized against everything that helps humanity.

The survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have lived longer lives in better health than those of the population who didn't get a dose. Don't confuse this with high dose radiation which is bad but it makes inroads in debunking the LNT theory that any dose is a bad dose. This is the same technique that activists use to demonize all sorts of chemicals in their retarded crusade to send us back to the dark ages.

https://junkscience.com/wp-content/uploa...0114-3.pdf

Low-dose radiation from A-bombs elongated lifespan and reduced cancer mortality relative to un-irradiated individuals

Quote:Abstract
The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) presented the linear no-threshold hypothesis (LNT) in 1956, which
indicates that the lowest doses of ionizing radiation are hazardous in proportion to the dose. This spurious
hypothesis was not based on solid data. NAS put forward the BEIR VII report in 2006 as evidence supporting LNT.
The study described in the report used data of the Life Span Study (LSS) of A-bomb survivors. Estimation of
exposure doses was based on initial radiation (5%) and neglected residual radiation (10%), leading to
underestimation of the doses. Residual radiation mainly consisted of fallout that poured down onto the ground
along with black rain. The black-rain-affected areas were wide. Not only A-bomb survivors but also not-in-the-city
control subjects (NIC) must have been exposed to residual radiation to a greater or lesser degree. Use of NIC as
negative controls constitutes a major failure in analyses of LSS. Another failure of LSS is its neglect of radiation
adaptive responses which include low-dose stimulation of DNA damage repair, removal of aberrant cells via
stimulated apoptosis, and elimination of cancer cells via stimulated anticancer immunity. LSS never incorporates
consideration of this possibility. When LSS data of longevity are examined, a clear J-shaped dose-response, a
hallmark of radiation hormesis, is apparent. Both A-bomb survivors and NIC showed longer than average lifespans.
Average solid cancer death ratios of both A-bomb survivors and NIC were lower than the average for Japanese
people, which is consistent with the occurrence of radiation adaptive responses (the bases for radiation hormesis),
essentially invalidating the LNT model. Nevertheless, LNT has served as the basis of radiation regulation policy. If it
were not for LNT, tremendous human, social, and economic losses would not have occurred in the aftermath of
the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant accident. For many reasons, LNT must be revised or abolished, with changes
based not on policy but on science.
Keywords: A-bomb survivors, Lifespan, Life Span Study, Linear no-threshold, LNT, Longevity, Residual radiation,
Threshold

You want to be sure that @Luvapottamus sees this. He's an "expert" on all things radiation.
(01-19-2019, 09:19 PM)dazedb42 Wrote: [ -> ]This is a must read if you are sick of the LNT theory which has been weaponized against everything that helps humanity.

The survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have lived longer lives in better health than those of the population who didn't get a dose. Don't confuse this with high dose radiation which is bad but it makes inroads in debunking the LNT theory that any dose is a bad dose. This is the same technique that activists use to demonize all sorts of chemicals in their retarded crusade to send us back to the dark ages.

https://junkscience.com/wp-content/uploa...0114-3.pdf

Low-dose radiation from A-bombs elongated lifespan and reduced cancer mortality relative to un-irradiated individuals

Quote:Abstract
The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) presented the linear no-threshold hypothesis (LNT) in 1956, which
indicates that the lowest doses of ionizing radiation are hazardous in proportion to the dose. This spurious
hypothesis was not based on solid data. NAS put forward the BEIR VII report in 2006 as evidence supporting LNT.
The study described in the report used data of the Life Span Study (LSS) of A-bomb survivors. Estimation of
exposure doses was based on initial radiation (5%) and neglected residual radiation (10%), leading to
underestimation of the doses. Residual radiation mainly consisted of fallout that poured down onto the ground
along with black rain. The black-rain-affected areas were wide. Not only A-bomb survivors but also not-in-the-city
control subjects (NIC) must have been exposed to residual radiation to a greater or lesser degree. Use of NIC as
negative controls constitutes a major failure in analyses of LSS. Another failure of LSS is its neglect of radiation
adaptive responses which include low-dose stimulation of DNA damage repair, removal of aberrant cells via
stimulated apoptosis, and elimination of cancer cells via stimulated anticancer immunity. LSS never incorporates
consideration of this possibility. When LSS data of longevity are examined, a clear J-shaped dose-response, a
hallmark of radiation hormesis, is apparent. Both A-bomb survivors and NIC showed longer than average lifespans.
Average solid cancer death ratios of both A-bomb survivors and NIC were lower than the average for Japanese
people, which is consistent with the occurrence of radiation adaptive responses (the bases for radiation hormesis),
essentially invalidating the LNT model. Nevertheless, LNT has served as the basis of radiation regulation policy. If it
were not for LNT, tremendous human, social, and economic losses would not have occurred in the aftermath of
the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant accident. For many reasons, LNT must be revised or abolished, with changes
based not on policy but on science.
Keywords: A-bomb survivors, Lifespan, Life Span Study, Linear no-threshold, LNT, Longevity, Residual radiation,
Threshold

Amazing.
(01-19-2019, 11:01 PM)CrypticMole Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-19-2019, 10:49 PM)PickleSnout Wrote: [ -> ]Banannas are radioactive

Trippynana

So is the earth itself.
So does seawater and the oceans.
Therefore, so does the entire planet.
Quite naturally.

If you own an older Nikon / Leica / Zeiss, etc. Camera Lenses, it might be really Radioactive. But, just a few select lens designs. Look for a yellowing front element.

Snip
Radiation LevelsEdit
Typical radiation levels can approach 10 mR/hr (100 ╬╝Sv/h) as measured at the lens element's surface, decreasing substantially with distance; at a distance of 3 ft. (.9 m.) the radiation level is difficult to detect over typical background levels. For reference, a typical chest x-ray consists of about about 10 mR, a round-trip cross country airline flight exposes a passenger to 5 mR, and a full set of dental x-rays exposes the patient to 10 mR to 40mR.
Most smaller lenses with thorium elements are not very dangerous. However, thorium eyepieces are dangerous. They can give a very large alpha and beta particle dose to the cornea of the eye, causing cataracts and other problems. Normally these particles are stopped by skin, but the surface of the eye is quickly damaged by them, and at close range, the dose can be very high.


http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Radioactive_lenses

Newton's Inverse Square Law at work.

I know there are some on here who think Newton's Inverse Square Law is Bull Shit @Luvapottamus ...but, as per my New Year's resolution, I won't argue the point.

My bold emphasis, mg
I used to build and repair industrial X-Ray equipment for 12 years, don't start with that silly shit, radiation is dangerous.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5