• Thank you for visiting the Cafe Rad Lab Forum
  • We present & discuss radiation health, science & news
  • To keep you informed about vital nuke information.
Hello There, Guest! Login Register


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Toxicity Studies of Radiation
#1
The science of radiation toxicity is revealing new insights. Because the universe, the earth and life on it is ubiquitously radioactive, its important to understand why 'low level' radiation is dangerous, or not, and the differences between background radiation and nuclear fallout. 

Epidemiology shows that there is a greater difference in toxicity between background radiation and nuclear fallout than traditionally assumed by radiation health physicists. That work comes mainly from studies of Chernobyl.  Advances in biology give insight.  The answers are not all in

Some interesting areas of research include the bystander effects, biological microenvironment and metabolic effects, frequency specific effects, quantum biology and biophotons, electromagnetic and electric field biology, and theoretical biophysics

please contribute insights and links to studies!
 
Reply
#2
Our most trusted institutes give the impression there is little danger from Fukushima. There is a wide difference in estimates of harm done from Chernobyl. Typically, field data and epidemiology give considerably higher estimates of damage than extrapolated estimates from traditional dose models.

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute;

"Is radiation a concern along U.S. and Canadian coasts?
Although we have found traces of radioactive contamination from Fukushima in samples collected through our citizen-science initiative 'Our Radioactive Ocean', the concentration of cesium-137 and -134 in these samples is well below levels of concern for humans or marine life. "

"Has Fukushima been responsible for the deaths of marine animals in the Pacific?
To date, there have been no reliable links made between radiation in the Pacific and mass die-offs of marine mammals, birds, fish, or invertebrates. Some of these die-offs have been attributed to viruses, warming water, and other changes to the marine environment "


It is an open and urgent question; how much has nuclear fallout contributed to the disease, morbidity and death on land and sea?   The wide disparity between estimates given by experts is an indication that radiation health physics and radiation ecobiology is an incomplete science.  There are conflicts of interest, and non transparency that rightfully reduce public confidence. Science and media contribute to the problem by labeling concerned citizens as conspiracy theorists and alarmists.  

Other scientists raise the concern, for example the estimate of 60 million deaths caused by the bomb test era from the ECRR;  the dedicated study of the effects of Chernobyl showing the magnitude of the catastrophe in deaths sickness and deformations, and field work showing deformations related to Fukushima, as well as epidemiology suggesting a significant impact on infant death and deformities in the U.S. resulting from Fukushima.

Indeed, significant work and opinion from experts supports the view that the future of civilization and life on earth is at stake.  Not only from the nuclear industry, but the confluence of exploitation, multitudinous streams of pollution, consumption  and violence consequent to civilization. 

The incontestable insight of Einstein applies to any source of nuclear fallout, not just the bomb; "Our world faces a crisis as yet unperceived by those possessing the power to make great decisions for good or evil. The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe"

That is the stage that motivates an investigation into ongoing scientific studies of radiation and biology

In humans, in utero exposure to ionising radiation results in an increased prevalence of neurological aberrations, such as small head size, mental retardation and decreased IQ levels. Yet, the association between early damaging events and long-term neuronal anomalies remains largely elusive.
A multidisciplinary approach unravels early and persistent effects of X-ray exposure at the onset of prenatal neurogenesis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26029273/

I would point out that the ionizing radiation in question may have a large difference in effect, depending on the source, electromagnetic frequency, form (hot particles or gamma waves for example). In the study, it is confined to X-ray doses, ranging between 0.0 and 1.0 Gy.  Note the metabolic alterations

"CONCLUSIONS:

Our findings provide evidence for a radiation-induced disruption of mouse brain development, resulting in behavioural differences. We propose that alterations in cortical morphology and juvenile hippocampal neurogenesis might both contribute to the observed aberrant behaviour. Furthermore, our results challenge the generally assumed view of a higher radiosensitivity in dividing cells. Overall, this study offers new insights into irradiation-dependent effects in the embryonic brain, of relevance for the neurodevelopmental and radiobiological field."

Are all animals including humans inherently stupid due to inherent background radiation?  I doubt it. Note that cancer is not the only effect.  Current science says its impossible to attribute ill effects to nuclear fallout because of its hit or miss stochastic character.  But studies show that fallout has SOME impact on all cases of  morbidity.

A multidisciplinary approach unravels early and persistent effects of X-ray exposure at the onset of prenatal neurogenesis.
"Apart from an excess cancer risk , a higher incidence in generalized growth retardation and microcephaly, mental disability, and seizures, as well as a decreased school performance and scoring on intelligence tests, was observed. These defects were all relatively linearly dose-dependent, with an increased risk for mental retardation of 43% and a decline of 25–29 points in IQ values per Gy"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26029273/

Pia, its disappointing to have new posts appended to the older ones. Any way to change that?

I may have posted some of these references in the bystander thread, but if so, they should be in this thread as well.
Biological communication factors are likely more important than direct DNA damage;

'Research shows that because of the phenomena characteristic for low dose radiation the risk of cancer induction from exposure of healthy tissues to low dose radiation can be greater than the risk calculated from linear no-threshold model.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5765312/

The bystander effect can cross organs, animals and even species
https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articl...4-g002.jpg

Remember that these are non radiated organs and animals!

'Are epigenetic mechanisms involved in radiation-induced bystander effects?'
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10....00074/full

Transmission of Signals from Rats Receiving High Doses of Microbeam Radiation to Cage Mates: An Inter-Mammal Bystander Effect
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3960955/
 
Reply
#3
new science overturns old dogma. Radiation effects are not confined to irradiated DNA or even cells, indeed a non irradiated animal can be impacted by proximity to irradiated animals. 

" Traditionally it was believed in radiobiology that only direct radiation exposure to genetic material of nucleus causes damage to cells. This model predicts that radiation-induced mutations are created in irradiated area during a short time after irradiation. This dogma was challenged in 1992 with an experiment performed by nagasawa. This experiment revealed that irradiation of 1% cells with alpha particles lead to chromatid exchange in more than 30% of cells. This is called as bystander effect which demonstrates the relationship between irradiated and non-irradiated cells . Results of studies on survivors of Chernobyl explosion as well as radiotherapy of patients with cancer revealed that adding blood serum of these individuals to the same non-irradiated cell culture causes chromosomal damage. These effects are persistent and would remain even in whom had a radiation exposure twenty years before. It is proposed that irradiated people blood has clastogenic factors. Bystander effect is more obvious in cells with gap junction. Therefore, intercellular relationships between cells is an  necessary requirement to transfer signals of radiation-induced bystander effect

Distant Bystander effect is proved to be existed outside of radiation field according to in-Vivo studies. Local irradiation to a small area of body causes chromosomal damages and changes in the cell and molecule levels of distant tissues."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289523/

The energy content of a deadly dose of radiation is very small. It may be the thermal equivalent of less than a cup of coffee.  The information 'field' is emerging as a significant factor in the development of disease caused by radioactivity.

microscopists used to see tiny dust floating around cells…they called it cell dust. In the last 17 years, this dust was found to be composed of short RNA fragments and is called microRNA. It has the ability to silence certain genes…its an epigenetic factor. Transmission of radiation bystander effect between organisms was first demonstrated by Surinov et al. (2001) in mice and has now been demonstrated in rats, several species of fish and in tadpoles, and is reviewed by the authors (Mothersill and Seymour, 2012)

microRNA plays a big role in cancer
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3467096/

I see a similarity of microRNA and ubiquitous virus content of the ocean...yet to be elucidated

Professor Mousseau was kind enough to explain a study of his on grasshoppers and join the conversation here at CafeRadLab.  We are fortunate to have his works which are a significant scientific documentation of deleterious impacts of fallout.  Thanks Mousseau !  Contrast these findings with the message given by Woods Hole

An overview of current knowledge concerning the health and environmental consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident.

Studies of plants and animals in the forests of Fukushima have recorded a range of physiological, developmental, morphological, and behavioral consequences of exposure to radioactivity. Some of the effects observed in the exposed populations include the following: hematological aberrations in Fukushima monkeys; genetic, developmental and morphological aberrations in a butterfly; declines in abundances of birds, butterflies and cicadas; aberrant growth forms in trees; and morphological abnormalities in aphids

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26425805

Some research finds a satisfactory correlation with standard dosimetry.  We dont want to over estimate nor underestimate the impact of nuclear fallout. Yet much remains to be understood, and an attitude of open mindedness, and especially giving latitude for unexpected biological and ecological multiplication factors is needed. For example, the bystander effect is a multiplication factor as is starvation due to radiological impacts down(up) the foodchain. Radiologically induced immune deficiency is another.

 "the overall bird abundance at Fukushima decreased with increasing total doses. This relationship was directly consistent with exposure levels found in the literature to induce physiological disturbances in birds. Among the 57 species constituting the observed bird community, we found that 90% were likely chronically exposed at a dose rate that could potentially affect their reproductive success. We quantified a loss of 22.6% of the total number of individuals per increment of one unit log10-tansformed total dose (in Gy), over the four-year post-accident period in the explored area. We estimated that a total dose of 0.55 Gy reduced by 50% the total number of birds in the study area over 2011-2014. The data also suggest a significant positive relationship between total dose and species diversity."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26567770

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4976067/

another study from Mousseau et al.  I wonder, what do Ken Buesseler and Jay Cullen think when they read these studies?

More than 5 million persons live in territories in these countries judged to be contaminated at >37 kBq m-2.

Ecological studies conducted in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone have indicated that radiation levels comparable to those found around Fukushima can be associated with deleterious genetic, physiological and life-history consequences for exposed wildlife. Low-dose radiation in the Chernobyl region was associated with higher DNA damage in adult barn swallows, higher frequency of morphological abnormalities and tumors, and a reduction in brain size. These and other physiological and genetic consequences of radiation exposure in Chernobyl have been indicated as the likely cause underlying the higher mortality and the populations declines of many bird species living in the Chernobyl region, as inferred from point count censuses and age ratios from mist netting studies

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09432

Illustrating the wide disparity of mainstream science (can we even call it that anymore?) and actual field scientific study, we are told by the World Health Organization "A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded." http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/rele...5/pr38/en/

which is in stark contrast to studies by Yablokov and many others.

Yablokov;  several hundred thousand died from chernobyl
http://www.foejapan.org/energy/evt/pdf/121214.pdf

985,000 people died, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident. That is between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004. More deaths, it projects, will follow.
Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment
Written by Alexey V. Yablokov

https://ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/

There is a mind boggling quantity of hot particles from Fukushima! 48-318 particles per gram. This is a stark reality in the physical world, far removed from the stuffy extrapolations of little danger produced by some scientists and ubiquitously parroted by the media.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29782160
Novel Method of Quantifying Radioactive Cesium-Rich Microparticles (CsMPs) in the Environment from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

. Based on the distribution of radioactivity of CsMPs, the threshold radioactivity of CsMPs in the size fraction of <114 µm was determined to be 0.06 Bq. Based on this method, the number and radioactivity fraction of CsMPs in four surface soils collected from the vicinity of the FDNPP were determined to be 48-318 particles per gram and 8.53-31.8%, respectively. The QCP method is applicable to soils with a total radioactivity as high as ~106 Bq/kg

emerging studies and theories in quantum biology will lead to greater insight into the fallout toxicity conundrum

"hydrogen tunneling was occurring in biological molecules at room temperature. The experiments involved replacing hydrogen with its heavier isotopic counterpart deuterium and measuring how the catalytic pace of the enzyme changed.The emerging picture is a “ very different view of catalysis,” says Klinman. “The role of the whole protein, through these fluctuating conformations, is to bring things so close that quantum mechanics starts to take over, even at room temperature.”

http://www.asbmb.org/asbmbtoday/201601/F...umBiology/

electrostatic situations can dramatically increase concentration of uranium and decay products
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OLGHmBV...e=youtu.be
 
Reply
#4
quantum biology. In distinction to popular, call them new age theories of quantum biology, science as yet finds quantum processes in biology unlikely at large scale. The quantum effect is easily snuffed out at room temperature and large assemblies. Nevertheless, research has found quantum characteristics to several biological processes. This is a nice paper giving an overview. There seems to always be more to learn and quantum biology is in the early stages.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2839811/

"As of today, experimental demonstrations of quantum coherence in biology are still limited to the level of a few molecules. This includes for instance all quantum chemistry, tunneling processes, coherent excitation transport, and local spin effects. ...Fascinating combinations of physics and biology can be understood already now. We have identified a large number of interconnects between quantum physics and the life sciences . in living systems any improvement by a few percent might already make the difference in the survival of the fittest. Therefore, even if coherence or entanglement in living systems were limited to very short time intervals and very small regions in space—and all physics experiments up to now confirm this view—simple quantum phenomena might possibly result in a benefit and give life the edge to survive."
 
Reply
#5
You're on a roll Code.  I don't have much to add but I'll put up some things I found.

Health News
December 10, 2015 / 2:47 PM / 3 years ago
Study finds higher rates of advanced thyroid cancer in California
Dan Whitcomb
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cance...YN20151210
Quote:Harari said she was just beginning a second study that would examine potential links to farming, pesticides or radiation.

Four years after Fuku and a cancer known to be caused by radiation exposure is studied for socioeconomic factors and toxin exposure before radiation is considered.  You might research Dr. Avital Harari's second study findings to see if any link to Fuku was established.  

\\

Cancer Rates Soar To Scary Levels Near New York Nuclear Power Plant
March 4, 2016 Sean Adl-Tabatabai
https://yournewswire.com/cancer-rates-ex...lant-leak/
Quote:the pertinent question: why is nobody else reporting on a disaster that may be bigger than Fukushima?

To protect the nuclear industry.  

\\

Living in a toxic world: Iodine to the rescue

Sources and Uses for Iodine / Iodine to Rescue
Published on June 11, 2012
https://drsircus.com/iodine/sources-and-...to-rescue/
Quote:Anyone who tells you to stay away from iodine is a medical idiot. Actually that statement does not cover the story of medical cruelty and the pharmaceutical terrorism that is centered on iodine phobia that is rampant in the medical world today.

Newly revealed tapes, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, show the unconscionable failure of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to protect California infants from radioactive fallout from the meltdowns at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Japan.

NRC officials calculated an annual thyroid dose of 40,000 microsieverts (or 4 REM) for infants under one year of age in California. Per the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services division of Radiation Emergency Medical Management division (REMM), a child's dose of 5 REM is immediate grounds for evacuation and prophylactic measures. (REM does not specifically reference an infant dose) Thus, the projected government dose of 4 REM was 80% of the suggested evacuation rate.

Iodine-131, a radioactive isotope, is primarily taken up by the thyroid gland. It is a bio-mimicker. The thyroid gland requires iodine to function. In a nuclear accident large amounts of radioactive iodine-131 are released and this was certainly the case for Fukushima, especially in the early days. The thyroid gland is unable to differentiate between regular iodine and radioactive iodine and will uptake whatever chemical form it is presented with especially when one is already iodine deficient.

The Fuku dose was calculated to be a little less than required for any action to be taken.  That's convenient.  Key to protecting the thyroid from radiation sources and the toxic halides, bromides, chlorides, and fluorides is getting enough iodine.  

\\

Breakthrough Discovery Shows That Resonant Frequencies Can Kill Cancer Cells
February 5, 2016
https://www.wakingtimes.com/2016/02/05/b...cer-cells/
Quote:Anthony Holland, an Associate Professor and Director of Music Technology at Skidmore College in New York, U.S., and his fellow researchers discovered that, by creating custom digital electronic signals, they can destroy cancer cells and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MSRA). In their laboratory experiments, the team used Oscillating Pulsed Electric Fields (OPEF) to induce sympathetic resonant vibrations which in a short amount of time shattered targeted cells from pancreatic cancer, leukemia, ovarian cancer, and the dangerous antibiotic-resistant bacterium MSRA.


If it's that easy to eliminate cancer we won't need radiation treatments and chemotherapy.  It's probably not covered by Insurance anyway.  

\\

Electric Fields Kill Tumors

A promising device uses electric fields to destroy cancer cells in the brain.
by  Katherine Bourzac
August 8, 2007

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/40837...ll-tumors/
Quote:The electric fields’ different effects on normal and dividing cells mostly have to do with geometry. A dividing cell has what Palti calls “an hourglass shape rather than a round shape.” The electric field generated by the NovoCure device passes around and through round cells in a uniform fashion. But the narrow neck that pinches in at the center of a dividing cell acts like a lens, concentrating the electric field at this point. This non-uniform electric field wreaks havoc on dividing cells. The electric field tears apart important biological molecules, such as DNA and the structural proteins that pull the chromosomes into place during cell division. Dividing cells simply “disintegrate,” says Palti.

Be careful of those electric fields, the effects have to do with geometry.    

\\
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#6
Thanks Horse. 
It may be of minor interest that the device Anthony Holland used to destroy  cells is the rife device as recreated by Dr Bare.  I built one myself and experimented for many years with it.  The machine uses a radio wave carrier with audio and ultrasonic modulation and a plasma antennae.  I used a novel method to analyse the wave; A small piece of burlap attached to a phone jack allowed me to input the received signals into a Fourier transform freeware.  Personal results were hard to quantify for lack of medical testing.  But I remained free of colds or flu for as long as I used the machine and could usually stop the onset of cold sores, so it seemed effective against viruses.  It wasnt free from negative side effects, but perhaps my radio exposure was too intense
 
Reply
#7
Great lead in for a new thread.  I thought Rife was dependent on specific frequencies.  Were you able to check the frequency?  I don't really know much about the contraptions that promise a cancer cure but I've read some about Rife devices.   What happened, were they successful at eliminating cancer?

Simple searches for cancer brings up a plethora of causes and cures.  Very few mention radiation as a cause.  Do you think they might be keeping us in the dark on purpose?  You've combed thru the ncbi site and presented quite a bit of info, a monumental task.  I think even the academic papers we get to see may be limited by gatekeepers.  

A search at the ncbi site for biophotons brings up ninety full text papers.  This seemed to be an interesting place to start.  

Speculations about Bystander and Biophotons
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4267444/
Quote:Abstract
Mothersill and many others during the last hundred years have shown that cells and now whole animals may communicate with each other by electromagnetic waves called biophotons. This would explain the source of the bystander phenomena. These ultra-weak photons are coherent, appear to originate and concentrate in DNA of the cell nucleus and rapidly carry large amounts of data to each cell and to the trillions of other cells in the human body. The implications of such a possibility can be wonderfully important.

Excerpts

Mothersill suggests that an organism may transmit information to other organisms by a weak electromagnetic field and not by chemical signals.

He suggested that weak photons may control cell growth and differentiation. In an age of biochemistry and molecular biology Gurwitsch’s studies were largely forgotten.

Popp believed that biophotons may represent a wide variety of frequencies which seem to originate from DNA and be concentrated in DNA of the cell nucleus; accordingly light can be stored in DNA and released over time.

Of course, much of this is speculation awaiting the widely dispersed dots of science inquiry to be connected.

Biophotonic markers of malignancy: Discriminating cancers using wavelength-specific biophotons
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5699883/
Quote:It is proven that tumors consume a lot of energy – as such they’ll be brighter and the bright light will have key frequencies embedded. In this present study, we harness these increases in biophoton intensity and energy to discriminate between healthy and malignant cells.

Some practical innovations are being developed using light therapy.

Healing the Body With Photobiomodulation
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic...ation.aspx
Quote:It’s important to realize that photobiomodulation is highly biphasic in dose, meaning the benefit can disappear by using too much light. There’s a dose range in which it will give you benefit.

Below that there is no effect and if you go a lot above the optimum you can actually cause harm.

It would seem that the bodies electromagnetic field operates within a narrow range.  Radiation may disturb this electric field and cause the damage we see from radiation exposure.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#8
The aftermath of Fukushima presents opportunities in studying health protection as more people have become aware of the links to cancer and heart health. I, and others, have added specific cancer fighting foods to my diet since 311 (March 2011). Enough time has passed that a large epidemiological study of people in fallout regions could provide greater insights on protective measures.
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#9
Horse and everyone.   Well I have a lot more papers I have not cited.  I always meant to use them here to support the ideas and conclusions I came to. Simply putting up the papers like I did above is a boring read and not all that useful. 

What the research shows is that the impact on biology from low level radiation is not dominated by direct DNA damage. I think this is an accepted mainstream realization.  They recognize that free radicals from radiation do the damage and they are keen to find differences in the density of ionization of tracks from different radiation sources, mainly alpha and beta tracks.   This is still a limited view.  Cellular biology is moving forward into the fantastic.

From ongoing research they do in radiation treatment, they concluded the bystander effect dominates the systemic biological response. This doesnt seem to have become the prevalent thinking in say marine radiation physics. The implications are huge.  Both anti nukers and mainstreamers seem to have the same belief system; that it is double strand breaks of DNA which is responsible for all of the effects.  This is a big impediment to full understanding and is not fruitful as the platform for an anti nuclear debate.  The amount of double strand breaks from normal biology totally overwhelms that from fallout.  Millions of double strand breaks per day. Now they have identified clusters of double strand breaks as being the clue to radiation damage, but this wont be the defining understanding. 

The literature and common sense indicates that at least in the case of potassium, our largest internal source of radiation, there is no deleterious bystander effect. The same has now been shown using micro beam research of other radionuclides.  But to date nobody is trying to catalog this effect.  

If one divides the dangerous dose of cesium137 given by Bandazhevsky; definate morbidity at 50 bq/kg, by the dose of radiation from potassium shown at least in one study (there arent any others!) to do no harm;  7000 bq/kg up to 70,000 bq/kg, you get a rough ratio of dose coefficients; at least 140 if not 1400 (depending on what number you use from the k-40 study. They actually enriched the k-40 in potassium, not an easy task).  However the many ultra low level radiation studies suggest that some radiation may actually be normal and good for biology.  So it may be assumed that the normal level of radiation from k-40 has, systemically, zero negative effect (one could say its as good as life on earth can do),  while there may be no safe dose for cesium 137.  In that case the ratio of danger of K40 to Cs137 is infinite.  This certainly puts the Woods Hole theme in a different light.  

The now antiquated mind set and use of Hiroshima victims to quantify radiation biological response was a huge detriment to the understanding of low level radiation and fallout. Energy deposition per volume of tissue must equal damage done. They were confident, how could it be any other way? Straight forward physics.

I should maybe add that Busby is keen on the photoelectric effect.  'Busby initially proposed the Second Event Theory (SET) in 1995, in his self-published book 'Wings of Death: Nuclear Pollution and Human Health' claiming that isotopes which decay sequentially, emitting two or more particles in a short decay chain, have far greater genotoxic effects than predicted by the LNT model. In particular, Busby's SET predicts that the 90Sr-90Y decay chain might be some ~30 times more carcinogenic than predicted by LNT, because primary exposure to a beta particle alters a cell to the G2 Phase, in which it is highly radio-sensitive, and a second particle "hit" within a few hours is more likely to cause carcinogenesis.'

'Later work by Busby focused on the health effects of ingested Depleted Uranium particles. In particular he proposes that ingested Uranium particles cause photoelectric enhancement that increases the genotoxic effect of natural background gamma radiation by 500 to 1000 times and varies to some power of the atomic mass'

It appears Busby also believes  DNA damage is the ultimate cause of radiation damage.  Given the chance of sufficient discussion and review, Im pretty confident Busby would agree that there are many facets to biological response. DNA is not the ultimate commander of biological function but a kind of command station responsive to various epigenetic factors.  Biology as a whole has been climbing out of the DNA as the be all, end all key to biology for the last few decades.
 
Reply
#10
(08-15-2018, 02:07 PM)Code Wrote: Both anti nukers and mainstreamers seem to have the same belief system; that it is double strand breaks of DNA which is responsible for all of the effects.
Actually, I've never settled on any belief system regarding how radiation causes health problems. As you point out, there are some paths of radiation science that are not well researched. And, I find it interesting that "Cesium-137 – mimics potassium; Strontium-90 – mimics calcium; and Iodine-131 – mimics iodine" https://drsircus.com/general/mineral-def...esistance/. This leads me to think DNA isn't the only "target."
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#11
Straight forward physics for an external dose.  The mistake was carrying that assumption over into internal doses.  They were confidant that they could confuse the issue.  They hold to that ICRP because ECRR would impede nuclear power production and more atomic bomb making.  K40 vs Cs137 is a false comparison to make, they are different elements, with different physical properties.  Dose coefficients was just another chance to fudge the numbers.    The bystander effect highlights the difference between an internal and external dose and will be ignored as long as they can.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#12
'The bystander effect highlights the difference between an internal and external dose and will be ignored as long as they can.'
Yes and no. For completeness, K-40 is a constant internal dose without a harmful bystander effect.  But the point is well taken that internal fallout is much worse than external radiation.

Horse, you asked if I was able to measure Rife frequencies.  My machine had a frequency generator and I was able to experiment with long lists of frequencies. These frequencies (of unknown and questionable origin) have been compiled at the electroherbalism site and elsewhere.  Some of the frequencies may be valid.   Using the machine, it was never obvious that an effect was taking place.  Some people claim to be able to feel it.  Yet live microscopy clearly shows dramatic effects on microorganisms.  Given that we are composed of micro organisms....not only our microbiome but simply our cells and organelles like mitochondria, I was always a little skeptical of just how specific we could target.   If the rife concept is true, then it shows the tremendous importance of frequency specific electromagnetic effects.

The story of electrotherapy and radiation includes some 'far out' stuff.  Stuff that the mainstream now considers pseudo science.  But this has always been the way of the mainstream.  To get a complete understanding of EM effects and informational pathways, some of these pseudo sciences may have to be accepted.  I dont say they should be accepted unscientifically.   Some scientists like prof. William Tiller have long been open and willing to theorize about them. Not true for the overwhelming majority of the mainstream.

An example of something now mainstream that was considered impossible is quantum entanglement. Anti matter was considered pseudo science...even heavier than air flight was deemed impossible by highly respected scientists. We now know that our bodies are producing about 4 antimatter annihilations per minute and that something similar in many ways to the lightening animating Frankensteins monster are occurring in our bodies. (beta, gamma, positrons, tribuelectric skin voltage gradients, cell wall voltage gradients, even biophotons)  Electromagnetism was once considered a fanciful impossibility...action at a distance...voodoo.   In reviewing the literature on homeopathy, one usually encounters the conclusion that its a fanciful impossibility.  They support this idea with meta studies.   Yet this paper describes homeopathic success, and includes another meta study and refutes the limitations of the nay saying studies 

 http://archive.foundationalmedicinerevie...5/1/48.pdf

so a picture emerges of the mindset of mankind;  He always rejects what he does not understand. Man rejects the ideas and discoveries that do not fit in his system of belief as preposterously impossible. Not only rejects it but with a contempt, often viciously attacking a pioneer, destroying his career and so on.  Mankind is not open minded, but walls himself behind emotionally mortared bulwarks of belief.  Its the rule, not the exception.   This keeps civilization from advancing.  Man is like a disturbed 3rd grader who is angry that anything other than simple addition and subtraction could be possible in math. He lashes out at new ideas. 

This is the milieu in which we must understand and debate the nuclear debacle.  
 
Reply
#13
All a computer knows how to do is subtract.  And I mention geometry.  What does Man know?  What he's heard or read about, yes, but then there is the knowledge that comes from experimenting and experience.  Man is here to learn.

Researchers in Homeopathy admit further research is necessary.  They need more proof to fund themselves but industry only funds what they can market.   What makes the succussion procedure so necessary and different than dilution?  You're further on this path than I am.  My extent of not mainstream science is supplementing with Iodine which was attacked as Homeopathy.  I can make a strong case that Iodine is the only healthy fuel for the thyroid but its the only mineral the mainstream science ignores.  

Pia -  I find it interesting that "Cesium-137 – mimics potassium; Strontium-90 – mimics calcium; and Iodine-131 – mimics iodine"

My body is used to K-40 but not Cs-137 for potassium fuel.  My calcium shouldn't have Sr-90 seeking out my bone marrow.  Radio-Iodine destroys my Thyroid and thus my Endocrine system.  That radiation targets important glands and organs tell us that its the internal dose that will injure us.  If you are measuring external doses outside; what dose will you bring inside?

Code - Given that we are composed of micro organisms

An internal dose would be injuring the micro-organism too, harming us. Fungi thrive in radiation and they can harm us too.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#14
a great paper from Bandazhevsky on Non-cancerous Medical Conditions in Areas of Belarus Contaminated by Radioactivity from the 1986 Chernobyl Nuclear Accident.

Bandazhevsky starts with a succinct description of the problem which includes the psychological basis for mans self destruction.   The nuclear problem is not separate from the psychological problem of civilizations. 
Radio-ecological problem 

The ecological environment influences health and regulates the development of human society. Not taking into account the considerable progress in protecting the environment and therefore protection of human health, some countries have serious environmental problems. Chief among these countries are those of the former Soviet Union. The aspiration to follow and overtake the military and economic development of the West drove the leaders of the former Soviet Union to implement industrial technology with a fatal impact on the environment and therefore on public health. We must first take into consideration the atomic weapons tests conducted by the USSR. A consequence of these tests since 1960ʼs is the pollution by radioactive elements in the huge territories of Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine and Russia. The population of these countries had no information on the existence of radioactivity and therefore could not protect itself from its impact in any way.

 Exposure to radioactive agents has led to a doubling of mortality rates over the past 20 years

http://fukuleaks.org/web/wp-content/uplo...ernoby.pdf




The science of radiation dose and risk as per the ICRP LNT standard is flawed.   Not just its estimates, but the fundamental concepts are flawed.  Nuclear fallout causes metabolic changes which affect every aspect of health.  Note this is completely different from the exclusive focus on cancer and the all or nothing stochastic assumption of nuclear science which often asserts you cant prove anyone was harmed by nuclear fallout.  Indeed, the entire earth is suffering reduced health from the nuclear industry

"Thus, a long-living radioisotope Cs-137, penetrating into the body, adversely affects many vital organs and systems. The result is the damage to the highly differentiated cells, the severity of which is in direct proportion to the amount of the incorporated radioactive cesium. At the heart of this process is the destruction of the energetic mechanism, leading to the disintegration of protein structures. In this regard, a characteristic feature of the Cs-137 effects on the human body is the inhibition of metabolic processes in the cells of vital organs and systems, due to its direct effects, the effects of toxic agents formed (nitrogen compounds), and the disruption of tissue nutrition due to vascular damage. These pathological changes found in humans or animals can be collectively called a “syndrome of the long-living incorporated radioisotopes (SLIR).” The syndrome appears when the body incorporates Cs-137, with its intensity depending on the amount and duration of incorporation. It is characterized by the metabolic disorders caused by specific structural and functional alterations of the cardiovascular, nervous, endocrine, immune, reproductive, digestive, urinary, and hepatobiliary systems. The amount of Cs-137 required to induce SLIR may vary according to age, gender and the functional state of the body. In children, significant pathological changes were observed in organs and systems with an incorporation of Cs-137 over 50 Bq/kg. At the same time, metabolic disturbances, especially in the myocardium, were observed at a concentration of Cs-137 as little as 10 Bq/kg."

http://fukuleaks.org/web/wp-content/uplo...ernoby.pdf
 
Reply
#15
Health consequences of Chernobyl: the New York Academy of Sciences publishes an antidote to the nuclear establishment's pseudo-science.

Abstract
In February 2010, the New York Academy of Sciences published the most complete and up-to-date collection of evidence, from independent, scientific sources all over the world, on the health and environmental consequences of the Chernobyl accident. For 24 years, through a high-level, internationally coordinated cover-up of the world's most serious industrial accident, the nuclear lobby has deprived the world of a unique and critically important source of scientific information. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), mouthpiece of the nuclear establishment, has coordinated the cover-up through the dissemination and imposition of crude pseudo-science. Regrettably, the World Health Organization, a U.N. agency on which the world's people rely for guidance, is subordinate to the IAEA in matters of radiation and health, has participated in the cover-up, and stands accused of non-assistance to populations in danger. The new book on Chernobyl makes available huge amounts of evidence from independent studies undertaken in the affected countries, unique and valuable data that have been ignored by the international health establishment. This comprehensive account of the full dimensions of the catastrophe reveals the shameful inadequacy of current international assistance to the affected populations. It also demonstrates, once more, that future energy options cannot include nuclear power.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058538
 
Reply
  


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Fukushima Monkey Studies piajensen 1 1,125 03-12-2018, 02:59 PM
Last Post: Horse

Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)