Welcome, Guest

 or  Register
NewsFeed

Low dose radiation is good for you.
#41
(Yesterday, 12:14 AM)MaximalGravity Wrote:
(01-19-2019, 10:19 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.

@MaximalGravity is a douchebag poseur regarding radiation.

What is valence?

Make sure he answers that question.

Passive aggressive twit.

What is valence?

What's a catalyst?

How is sunlight a catalyst?

How is UV light a catalyst?

Does it have anything to do with electrons?
Falcon  likes this!
Reply Share
#42
(28 minutes ago)Luvapottamus Wrote:
(Yesterday, 12:14 AM)MaximalGravity Wrote:
(01-19-2019, 10:19 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

You want to be sure that @Luvapottamus sees this. He's an "expert" on all things radiation.

@MaximalGravity  is a douchebag poseur regarding radiation.

What is valence?

Make sure he answers that question.

Passive aggressive twit.

What is valence?

What's a catalyst?

How is sunlight a catalyst?

How is UV light a catalyst?

Does it have anything to do with electrons?

Whats wrong with being "passive aggressive" on the Internets?

He would probably take your head clean off IRL.
Or not, either way I would pay to see it.
Luvapottamus  likes this!
Reply Share
#43
(25 minutes ago)Falcon Wrote: Whats wrong with being "passive aggressive" on the Internets?  

He would probably take your head clean off IRL.
Or not, either way I would pay to see it.

Lmao
Reply Share

Post Thread  Back To Forum
[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Please select the number: 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10