
Chronic Low-Level Radiation Good for Us? Taiwan Housing Accident Suggests So. - aasarava
http://www.scienceboard.net/community/perspectives.122.html
======
RK
Radiation hormesis (i.e. low level radiation being beneficial) is considered
very controversial, but the data about how low levels of radiation affects
humans is very bad. Most data that people work with is from the Hiroshima and
Nagasaki bomb survivors. On the low end of the scale the models usually just
have a question mark. One of the models proposed is radiation hormesis. There
is some other (controversial) data that people who are exposed to chronic
radon exposure have lower levels of lung cancer.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis>

The plot on this page shows some of the current guesses about low-level
radiation response:

[http://web.princeton.edu/sites/ehs/osradtraining/biologicale...](http://web.princeton.edu/sites/ehs/osradtraining/biologicaleffects/Risk.htm)

Hormesis would dip below the axis, indicating a less than zero risk.

------
drp
Cancer death rate goes down to zero when everyone dies from other illnesses.

~~~
dlsspy
Yeah. Tossing in another axis for lifespan would be good.

------
eggoa
This journal seems to have a definite political agenda.

[http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/91/strange-
bedfello...](http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/91/strange-bedfellows)

------
reasonattlm
Note that heat shock hormesis and calorie restriction hormesis (which may
involve the same underlying mechanisms) are demonstrably good for you. The
science backing those forms of enhanced bodily health are good: a little
damage and adversity provokes the body into much greater clean-up and defense
efforts, with the net result of increased health and longevity.

See: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis>

As other posters point out, the data for radiation hormesis is lacking in
comparison. However, it's not an unreasonable hypothesis given the reaction of
mammal biology to other types of low-level damage.

------
tokenadult
Here's a reminder of issues to check in any news report about a scientific
study,

<http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html>

from Google's director of research, Peter Norvig.

------
wozer
That graph looks TOO good to be true.

~~~
windsurfer
That graph looks like the half-life curve of Co-60...

------
scotty79
Study comparing apples to oranges ... Why anyone takes this seriously? Just
because of thrill value?

From Wikipedia:

However, this study has been considered to have next to no scientific value,
because it compares the irradiated population with the much older general
population of Taiwan. A subsequent study by Hwang et al. (2006) found a
significant exposure-dependent increase in cancer in the irradiated
population, particularly leukemia in men and thyroid cancer in women, though
this trend is only detected amongst those who were first exposed before the
age of 30

------
celoyd
These theories have been around for decades:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis>

Needless to say, they don't have a lot of mainstream acceptance.

~~~
billswift
That's the result of fear-mongering by anti-nuclear groups. Hell, there is NO
support for the beliefs that power lines cause leukemia or cell phones cause
brain cancer, but lots of idiots still believe it, as the results of
environmentalist and "pro-consumer" fear-mongering.

------
DannoHung
Hmm, interesting, well, has anyone repeated the results in lab animals in a
controlled environment?

~~~
rflrob
In reference 6 from the Wikipedia article on Radiation Hormesis, the abstract
says "Data concerning about 85,000 exposed animals and their 45,000
corresponding controls, with a total of over 60,000 and 12,000 cancers in
exposed and control animals, respectively, have been collected." So, for
suitable definitions of controlled environment, they have been repeated.

I'm frankly tempted to believe this data. There does seem to be a plausible
mechanism of action, and there isn't, to my knowledge, much evidence to prefer
the Linear No Threshold model. On the other hand, I probably won't go and tape
a radioactive source over my pancreas, so I don't believe either model enough
to actively do anything about it.

------
scythe
I'm assuming the effects on humans are different for different types of
radiation and different types of exposure; as I recall, lung cancer deaths are
significantly higher in regions where radon (an alpha-emitter) emissions from
granite are above average.

------
StrawberryFrog
there is a kind of logic to this. Humans have evolved in an environment where
there is continual low level background radiation. So like any other feature
of the environment, we are adapted to cope with it, maybe even to expect and
benefit from it.

------
NathanKP
I really don't see how low-level radiation can be good for us. If it is then
cell phones should also prevent brain cancer.

<http://www.globalchange.com/radiation.htm>

I agree with eggoa who said that this article must have a political agenda.

~~~
slackerIII
"Radiation" means a lot of different things. Decay of nuclear materials !=
cell phone emissions.

