Why do most people today, scientists included, believe that small doses of radiation are harmful to human health when no proof for this theory exists, and when mountains of evidence show the opposite — that small amounts of radiation actually promote health? After years of sleuthing into historical records, a scientist at the University of Massachusetts has found a smoking gun, involving a scientific scam in 1946 at the very highest echelons — the Nobel Prize ceremonies in Stockholm.
In an august Nobel hall one year after the end of the Second World War, the scientific world was knowingly misled by Hermann J. Muller, winner that year of the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine. This is the verdict from a forensic review entitled Muller’s Nobel Prize Lecture: When Ideology Prevailed Over Science, just published by the Society of Toxicology in the Oxford University Press’s Toxicological Sciences. Had Muller spoken the truth and revealed the existence of contradictory research in the world’s most prominent scientific gathering, we might today have an entirely different view of radiation and its effects, preventing immense human suffering and the loss of countless lives.
Yet even more proof that science is not science but a whore that turns tricks for it’s political pimps…shocker…..
Low levels of radiation is believed to be a factor in the level of mutations or genetic variance needed for evolution.
That said, most mutations are harmful, though not all.
The Tri-State Leukemia Study in the 60s showed a strong positive correlation between X-ray history and the development of Leukemia. Leukemia has a 5 yr. latency period. It’s the fastest of cancers.
This study(and I presume follow-up) led to the lead shielding that is now used. Also, each new generation of X-ray machines have been designed ever since to emit lower doses of X-rays.
A dose of radiation that kills all the cells doesn’t leave any surviving mutated cells. Also, cancer cells grow so more quickly than normal cells so they are easier to kill with radiation.
This is not incompatible with a genetic error correction system existing within genomes.
Related:
If Kent actually says ‘we can reduce global warming’ I’ll puke.
Today in USA:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1132249–hillary-clinton-and-peter-kent-to-announce-emission-reduction-plan
I think Peter Kent is seriously an A-hole. Since I heard him express his undying belief in the global warming fiction on the Rutherford Show out of Calgary I have come to the conclusion that he is stupid enough to alienate Conservative voters, few of whom believe the crap. Mind you Harper seems to be falling on his own sword on the pension reform. How do you stop politicians from being self-destructive idiots?
Re: “Yet even more proof that science is not science but a whore that turns tricks for it’s political pimps…shocker…..”
I agree that this is certainly behind the current AGW scam, but I think in this case, Mr. Muller was more interested in his ego being stroked (and the prize money too) than the truth of the matter.
The desire to maintain his status led to this fraud.
I remember the days when our parents took us to buy shoes, we put our feet into a machine and it took an X-ray of them. As the parents were paying for the purchases, my brother and I would see how many times we could X-ray our feet before having to leave. Still have the feet and they are still in good condition.
I did the same as Ralph many, many times. My feet are non too pretty, but that probably had more to do with 33 years in the Canadian Army than some frigging X-ray machine zapping them.
Scar said; “How do you stop politicians from being self-destructive idiots?”
Damn good question Scar. It has to be once they get into office and get around all that money and corruption they just can’t help themselves. The temptation to eat the apple is just too strong.
There has been a deviant mutation in scientific idealism since the late 5os. Prior to this science was seen as an infallible reasoning discovery discipline which would send man to the moon, and ultimately other universes, irradiate hunger, war, need, and disease and the drudgery of manual labor freeing mankind to pursue his greater purpose. But somewhere in the 60s-70s pro humanist scientific thought was derailed by a form of dower anti-humanist authoritarianism which was openly misanthropic. It sees man as a cancer on the planet and unutilized nature as a godshead – instead of seeing man as part of nature and its master and benefactor. Today science looks for every excuse to make mankind feel guilty for its very existence and promotes finding a solution to remove 9 in 10 of us as the holy grail of utopian science.
There nothing degenerate ideology and political agendas cannot corrupt. I suggest those who think this assessment is over the top seek out Ayn Rand’s commentary on the new left published in 1968 – startling predictions about how all the sciences arts and humanities would be used by the radical left to propel an agenda of collectivist statism and population control. Science has been coopted into that grand agenda and the proof is everywhere to be seen by those who have the reason left to see it.
Seems to me we should actively distrust “scientists.”
Larry says, “This study(and I presume follow-up)….”
Could you point us to the follow-ups?
Alpha and beta particles are non-penetrating and cause localised damage on the skin (for example). Gamma rays are more penetrating and can cause more damage yet are used in some medical procedures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_rays#Health_effects
From “The Bells of Nagasaki” by Dr. Takashi Nagai:
“Wounds directly caused by the explosion were the result of pressure, heat, gamma rays, neutrons, and fragments of the bomb (balls of fire).”
These were the initial injuries. He later describes what was called “atom bomb sickness” – bleeding, white cell counts, diarrhea- which persisted for some time after the bombing of Nagasaki in 1945. Cancer occurred in people directly exposed to the bomb but in a study conducted in the 90’s, children of a-bomb survivors showed no signs of increased cancer risk:
http://dels-old.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/rerf_final.pdf
Just throwing this out there.
There are increased cancer risks in mining for heavy metals – used in batteries- in China:
http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=394&catid=10&subcatid=66
Saying that all radiation is safe, or unsafe…
is like saying all cars are safe, or unsafe.
Details and specifics are very important.
Hormesis! Specifically, Radiation Hormesis.
The evidence in favor of small doses of increased radiation keeps piling up.
Occam
I subscribe to that….
I witnessed the advance of Gramski’s “long march through the institutions” into physical sciences adn engineering. I suspect it was due to preferential hiring promotion by arts/history dominated University administrations.
In a best case scenario, it will probably require a generation or two, to purge this element from academia. They are dug in tighter than a tick.
It was not “what is 2 + 2….what would you want it to be?”….it became what they wanted it to be.
In the early days of X rays there were some reports of beneficial effects from them. On the other hand, a lot of the early radiologists died of cancer. Radiologists, and some d*****d fools, such as the French medical students who irradiated their privates before hot nights out, so that they could tell their dates, accurately that they were infertile.
I do know one chap who as a summer student working at Chalk River accidentally drank some radium chloride solution. He is now in his 80s, still alive and probably even healthy, still emitting radon (a new type of bad breath!).
Scar and Ratt, never underestimate the power and persuasiveness of the bureaucracy.
North of 60, makes sense to me.
Always follow the money, the Grey Lady nails it.
How about Radium suppositories from 1930 …. yikes …. (for men only)
http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/quackcures/radsup.htm
Radiation treatment for prostate cancer
http://www.prostate-cancer.com/radiation/treatment-description/radiation-description.html
The snake oil sales men has never left us. Their just certified now by Colleges, Universities with other paper mills. Credential-ism has blinded us all. Remember DDT the so called killer of bald eagles? That almost eliminated Malaria. How many have died till we found out it was another con. How about the con on a chemical called Alar that almost killed the fruit industry in California that turned an environmentalist hoax?
God only knows how many other false science is taken as fact because of the agendas of these crooks in white coats. One just has to remember everyone has an agenda than weigh what they say
With a critical eye.
Scientism is a religion with some people, having no real connection with real science, which is observable data by repeatable means.
Solomon has had an epiphany of sorts. As a founder of Energy Probe, his anti-nuclearism led him to give lip service to some of the anti-technological bs that was the hallmark of the movement. Now he appears to oppose nuclear energy only on economic grounds, so maybe there is hope for him.
It is difficult enough to understand and accept the concept of hormesis in relation say to a pesticide but it is very difficult when considering radiation in view of the lethal and cancer-inducing effects of the radiation from the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Regulation of nuclear facilities and the use of radiation in medicine and industry across the world has been based on the lethal and harmful effects of large doses of radiation and the concept of the Linear No Threshold model. Under LNT there is no lower limit at which radiation is not potentially harmful.
Society, politicians, decision makers and presumably many scientists have been unwilling to consider that the LNT model is wrong and it is unlikely that there will be any significant changes in the near future despite the fact that it is now known to be a false concept. No evidence has ever been presented to support LNT; it is a concept that appeals to authorities who wish to be seen to be protecting a radiophobic public.
There is very little awareness of hormesis let alone radiation hormesis outside a few experts. Peer-reviewed publications, are said to run into the thousands, on the subject. The book “Radiation Hormesis” by Luckey (1991) listed 1018 references. For his work Luckey was made an honorary Samurai by the Japanese authorities.
A clear distinction needs to be made between whole or part body, external radiation at low levels which is the situation relating to radiation hormesis and internal radiation which follows the ingestion of radioactive elements and the use of high level directed radiation in the treatment of cancer; such internal radiation has localised effects on small groups of cell.
Regarding Hiroshima I am in contact with a Japanese fellow born in 1945 just before the atomic bomb 1.5 km from the epicentre. He, his mother and older brother survived but his older sister did not. He calls himself a “survivor”!
I can supply notes on examples of radiation hormesis.
Pernicious nonsense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VKzqAefBVY
Vic: “No evidence has ever been presented to support LNT”
WRONG. The BEIR reports constitute much of that evidence. One can argue with the validity of the evidence and the conclusions, and many have done so, but you cannot claim that no evidence has been presented. The annals of the ICRP cite the evidence on which their recommendations are based, and the Annals go back more than 50 years. Again, you can argue with the validity of the evidence, but you cannot claim there is nothing supporting LNT.
Remember, and this is where so many antinukes get it wrong deliberately, LNT is not a predictor of consequence. It is only an estimate of risk. The regulatory authorities have chosen to treat it as a predictor of harm. And they have done so because government has failed to define the level of harm which is to be regulated. What they demand in a crisis is absolute protection, which cannot exist. And so the nuclear industry is caught in an ever increasing spiral of regulatory requirements which cannot be justified by the vast resources expended for the theoretical and trivial number of lives saved.
There’s two other points to consider which are slowly making their way through the relevant scientific community. The life expectancy of the Hiroshima survivors is significantly longer than the Japanese national average. They may have a slightly higher incidence of cancer, but overall they’re living longer and healthier than the Japanese average.
Second, there is great debate about how much radiation dose the survivors actually received, and it’s been going on for decades. No one knows for certain, because there were no dosimeters. Dosages have been estimated using the Trinity test blast. However, these estimates are strongly thought to greatly underestimate the neutron count. If so, then the survivors received much higher radiation doses than currently accepted, meaning that radiation in general is less harmful than currently understood.