Gyroscopic Investing

Chernobyl’s abundant and surprisingly normal-looking wildlife has shaken up how biologists think about the environmental effects of radioactivity. The idea that the world’s biggest radioactive wasteland could become Europe’s largest wildlife sanctuary is completely counterintuitive for anyone raised on nuclear dystopias.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ingle.html

I find it humorous that massive amounts of radiation is significantly less harmful to wildlife than the presence of humans.

Did I say humorous, I meant sad.

The assumption was that all levels of radioactivity above background are harmful i.e. that the risk curve extends linearly to low levels.  This has recently been shown not to be true (link is in Jerry pournelle's blog last coupla weeeks).  This can be explained by a concept called radiation hormesis which suggests that low levels of radiation can actually be helpful because they induce dna repair enzymes and there is some evidence to support this.  Of course everyone knows radiation is evil so this couldn't possible be true.  Why it's like saying that guns could actually be helpful, and prevent deaths, and everyone knows thats crazy talk ;-)


"I find it humorous that massive amounts of radiation..."
Massive amounts of radiation would probably be lethal to most animal species, so it was most likely only small amounts of radiation that reached the animals.

Benko is correct though I don’t think this is recently discovered.  The ancients knew the health benefits of radiation a long time ago.  Radon spas were considered healing places by the Romans 2 thousand years ago.  It’s also been documented that people who live in areas with high natural background levels tend to live longer than others.
As far as the Chernobyl incident, UNSCEAR reports:

…there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure two decades after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The incidence of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to the shorter time expected between exposure and its occurrence compared with solid cancers, does not appear to be elevated. Although those most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure.http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html

The military has known the real health effects of radiation since the  studies of the Hiroshima bombing victims were made in the 1950’s and 1960’s.  I was taught all this when I attended Radiation Safety Officer course in 1990.  Of course, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency is just like the EPA in fearmongering and spreading lies to garner a bigger budget. 

Ya; hormesis has been known for ages.  However:

Linear No Threshold Theory Wrong UN Admits – Media keeps Quiet
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/?p=11483

Getting the UN to admit something like this is a big thing.  Of course the media does what they are good at, ignoring anything but the party line.

FarmerD wrote: Of course, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency is just like the EPA in fearmongering and spreading lies to garner a bigger budget.

But of course.  I think we need to put the gov't in charge of everything.

Of course the media won't report something as mundane as a report that says, basically, there's no catastrophe.  I get a big kick reading the hysterical old news reports from 1986 when Chernobyl occurred.  Greenpeace claimed on network news that at least 500,000 people would be killed by the explosion, while other news reports featured "experts" claiming upwards of 1 million dead.  Other experts claimed the Chernobyl area would be an "uninhabitable desert"  for centuries.

According to the UN, 50 people died because of Chernobyl - 47 emergency workers who went into the buring reactor core plus 3 other who died years later due to thyroid cancer.  To be fair, there were a lot of thyroid cancers but the survival rate for thyroid cancer is over 99%.  Compare the number killed at Chernobyl to the number of people killed each year in the mining and petroleum industries. 

The current EPA promulgated scare is radon.  Michael Fumento did a great job of debunking the radon issue years ago.
http://fumento.com/radon/

Benko wrote: The assumption was that all levels of radioactivity above background are harmful i.e. that the risk curve extends linearly to low levels.  This has recently been shown not to be true (link is in Jerry pournelle's blog last coupla weeeks).  This can be explained by a concept called radiation hormesis which suggests that low levels of radiation can actually be helpful because they induce dna repair enzymes and there is some evidence to support this.  Of course everyone knows radiation is evil so this couldn't possible be true.  Why it's like saying that guns could actually be helpful, and prevent deaths, and everyone knows thats crazy talk ;-)

I really don't think that applies to the cancer-inducing mega-doses from CT and PET scans though.

Akin to low-level radiation, the same effect occurs from exercise, i.e. it causes an increase in free radicals and antioxidant hormesis is invoked.  There is a sweet spot where hormesis needs to be not too high and not too low.  I haven't heard of any tests yet to verify redox status.

FarmerD wrote: According to the UN, 50 people died because of Chernobyl - 47 emergency workers who went into the buring reactor core plus 3 other who died years later due to thyroid cancer.  To be fair, there were a lot of thyroid cancers but the survival rate for thyroid cancer is over 99%.  Compare the number killed at Chernobyl to the number of people killed each year in the mining and petroleum industries. 

What about all the thyroid cancers in the growing children that were exposed?

If the "cure" is removing the thyroid, thats not a cure, thats barbarism with long-term health consequences to qualify of life.  But, better off than dead, right?

Should I be thanking the TSA for my monthly dose?

dragoncar wrote: Should I be thanking the TSA for my monthly dose?

Shhh they'll start charging.