People are inhaling radon gas to "cure" their ailments

[brian0918]

More information on radon, a carcinogenic gas, here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon).


State of mine: Many swear to benefits of inhaling radon

BASIN - Is health, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder?

If that's the case, thousands of people every year, from all over the world, find healing relief from a variety of ailments - from cataracts and emphysema to arthritis and migraine headaches - at Montana's most unusual health facilities, the radon health mines of Boulder and Basin.

Those two small towns, located a few miles apart between Butte and Helena on Interstate 15, are the only places in North America where people come and pay to breathe the radioactive radon gas that occurs naturally in the mines Š for their health.

The concept, even the name - "radon health mines," seems contradictory.

Radon is a gaseous radioactive element that is derived from the radioactive decay of uranium, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The Montana public health agency "doesn't encourage (the mines') use," said Dr. Todd Damrow of the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Service. "But people are free to use them."

And they do, by the thousands every year. Many people make annual pilgrimages to the Merry Widow and the Earth Angel mines in Basin, and the Free Enterprise and Lone Tree mines in Boulder.

Owners of the mines dismiss the EPA warnings about radon as "government propaganda."

"It's not harmful at all," said Patricia Lewis, owner of the Free Enterprise Mine.

Dwayne Knutzen, owner of the Merry Widow, was visiting the Basin area from Washington four years ago and found the mine and its associated campground for sale.

"I was like everybody else," he said. "Radon? That can't be good for you."

But the more he researched the health benefits of radon, he said, the more he was convinced of them.

"The only reason I bought the place," said Knutzen, "is it's so fascinating. You hear all these bad things. But you can't ever find anybody who died from it. And there are all these benefits."

Arthritis is the most common malady of people seeking relief in the radon mines, according to Knutzen.

"Arthritis is the big one, but anything to do with the immune system," he said. "When you get older, your immune system starts to shut down. This (radon) stimulates those cells and gets them going again. So your body starts to heal itself. We have people come for multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, asthma, even fertility if you can believe it."

..............



http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2004/07/05/territory/territory01.txt


http://www.missoulian.com/content/articles/2004/07/05/territory/territory01.jpg
David the Gnome, in his later, more senile years

to comply with the copyright rule

[TheERK]

Brian,

I'm pretty sure that to comply with the forum rules, you need to remove most of that from the post. Select a few interesting and summarizing excerts and then link to the rest.

[brian0918]

Originally posted by TheERK
Brian,

I'm pretty sure that to comply with the forum rules, you need to remove most of that from the post. Select a few interesting and summarizing excerts and then link to the rest.

What's wrong with the post? It's just an article. I'm new here. What specific rules are you talking about?

In any case, it is apparently too late to edit the post.

[Sindai]

From the Revised Forum Rules thread:

The post contains copyright-protected material without proper permissions.
-Note: while we accept the "fair use" doctrine, we also understand that copyright extends to the internet
-Examples of unacceptable (illegal) posts could include: a Dilbert cartoon, the entire text of a magazine article, etc.

Of course, since you can't fix it yourself I'm sure a moderator will come along and get it.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Believe it or not, this is an old one.

The Thomas Radioactive Cone (ca. 1930s) (http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/quackcures/thomascone.htm)


The Thomas Cone belongs to a category of devices called emanators. The cone was placed in water, usually 1-2 gallons, to infuse the water with radon, a radioactive gas.

Named after R.W. Thomas, inventor of the Revigator, the Thomas Cone was produced in large quantities between 1920 and 1940. At least one manufacturing center was located in Lubbock, Texas. Approximately 70 grams of carnotite ore inside the 4 1/2 inch porous concrete cone served as the source of radon. Farmers could purchase larger versions for use in animal water troughs.

Pictures at link.

[Kopji]

Been going on a long time. One would think that if a 'dirty bomb' were ever exploded, people would rush TO the site rather than away from it.

Cool site on some antique radioactive products:

http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Elements/088/index.s7.html

[SquishyDave]

Radiation in doses larger than background levels but not too high are good for you, they improve health. I have a book coming that should list some studies for this, but basically if the radiation in the caves isn't above a certain level, then it might well be helping them.

[Vitnir]

Radiation in doses larger than background levels but not too high are good for you, they improve health. I have a book coming that should list some studies for this, but basically if the radiation in the caves isn't above a certain level, then it might well be helping them.
Believers in Homerosis (At least I think that is the term) make the assumption that effects in cellular cultures can be applied to humans. What they "forget" is that human live a lot longer than a cell so humans are far more vulnerable to cancer. Its not a big risk they take, even a doubled or trippled risk for cancer won't show unless its a big study. Still, its a pretty insane idea to come up with.

[SquishyDave]

Originally posted by Vitnir

Believers in Homerosis (At least I think that is the term) make the assumption that effects in cellular cultures can be applied to humans. What they "forget" is that human live a lot longer than a cell so humans are far more vulnerable to cancer. Its not a big risk they take, even a doubled or trippled risk for cancer won't show unless its a big study. Still, its a pretty insane idea to come up with. I believe this book was just looking at the results of hundreds of other studies of the effect on humans who work around radiation. But I will know more soon, and I might be wrong, so bear with me, I will post the info when I know more, then we can all pick at the sources together.

[Vitnir]

I'm not an expert in this field, my collegue is. According to him the idea that there is a safe threshold for radiation is slowly changing. When you refine your studies to be able to look at smaller risks you find that there is no safe level for radiation. The risks get absurdly small yes but not zero.

[Zep]

I have it on authority from a local that Boulder CO is a haven and gathering place for alt-med kooks, "New Age" converts, and all sorts of other raving nut-cases. He cites as typical a local female who changed her name from Cindy to Merlin, to invoke additional mystical earth-mother powers, apparently...

My apologies to the "normal" folk of Boulder if this is not the case!

[Vitnir]

Hm when I read the name "Merlin" I think of old men in long beards and silly looking pointy hats.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Vitnir
Hm when I read the name "Merlin" I think of old men in long beards and silly looking pointy hats. Me too. Or perhaps even aero engines at a pinch. But obviously this girl hadn't heard of either of these particular Merlins. :D

[SquishyDave]

Originally posted by Vitnir
I'm not an expert in this field, my collegue is. According to him the idea that there is a safe threshold for radiation is slowly changing. When you refine your studies to be able to look at smaller risks you find that there is no safe level for radiation. The risks get absurdly small yes but not zero. I went to a talk at a skeptics convention, and the speaker said the exact opposite of that, currently people think there is no safe level of radiation, but studies reveal that low levels actually increase health, probably for the same reason small levels of poison like magnesium and salt are healthy in the body. It made sense to me, we have evolved since the very first organic chemical turned into a self replicating organism with some level of radition, which has been a constant companion in all the millions of years life has been evolving. But, of course maybe no one knows, which is why there is this debate.

Anyway I have some of the literature this guy put together about this subject coming in the mail. When it gets here I willl post the pertinent parts so we can see if both sides have reason to believe what they say, or whether one side is just spewing crap.

[Vitnir]

My perception is that authorities all over the world is telling people that there is no risk with small doses, partly because they dont want people to worry about something nobody can anything about anyway. Or that it would cost way to much money to fix, a lot of residences in Sweden is built with concrete that emit gammaradiation in low doses, what do you do when you find out that there is a risk for lung cancer from it? Do you knock down all of them or do you calculate the cost-benefit and decide it just costs too much? (the money can be spent elsewhere and save more lives)

Besides, I simply can't think of a mechanism of how radiation would be beneficial for humans. Do someone know?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Vitnir Besides, I simply can't think of a mechanism of how radiation would be beneficial for humans. Do someone know? [/B]Comes in handy for zapping cancerous tumors. Useful for taking pictures of your bones. Radioactive tracers, when swallowed in a kind of milk shake, can diagnose digestive tract problems.

But generalized radiation? "Yeah, I'll just breathe in a bunch of this low-level radioactive air and I'll have a general improvement in my health."

Please.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Vitnir


Besides, I simply can't think of a mechanism of how radiation would be beneficial for humans. Do someone know?

"I don't know of a mechanism for how this could happen" is not exactly a scientific argument, you know?

SquishyDave is correct in that there is an increasing body of results that suggest that low-level radiation may have heath benefits. If you want scientific publications, there was a symposium on the subject ("International Symposium on Health Benefits of Low-Dose Radiation – The Science and Medical Applications") in Washington, DC a few years ago. You can also use the keyword "hormesis" to check it out on the web.

There are a number of theories floating around as to why these results might occur. One of the simplest is, more or less, that small levels of radiation keep producing extremely small levels of cancerous cells in your body, thus giving your body's natural anti-cancer defences a general workout., basically enhancing your immune system. Another suggestion is that low-level doses of radiation will kill cancer-prone cells in a steady stream, rather than letting them grow and multiply into a problematic quantity.

But the real test of the matter is, of course, clinical. I'll let you read the clinical data yourself and come to your own conclusions.

[steenkh]

Originally posted by drkitten
There are a number of theories floating around as to why these results might occur. One of the simplest is, more or less, that small levels of radiation keep producing extremely small levels of cancerous cells in your body, thus giving your body's natural anti-cancer defences a general workout., basically enhancing your immune system.


This theory seems to contradict the common knowledge that cancer cells are cells that divide like crazy. In that case, one cell would be one too many. But what do I know about cancer?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by steenkh


This theory seems to contradict the common knowledge that cancer cells are cells that divide like crazy. In that case, one cell would be one too many.

Your theory/knowledge is oversimplified. There are a number of mechanisms in place in the human body to rid it of foreign cells of all types, including cancer. There are also a number of mechanisms in place to repair damage of various kinds, including radiation or chemically-induced damage to the genetic code. With these systems in place, a single cancer-like cell isn't usually much of a problem, as most of the time (a key phrase), the cell can be quietly and efficiently disposed of. It's when such a cell manages to slip through the immune system's dragnet that a problem develops.

One of the theories behind hormesis is that it makes the dragnet more efficient; efficient enough not only to eliminate the few cancer-like cells produced by the low-level radiation, but also to eliminate more (ideally all) of the cells produced by natural carcinogenic cells.

Really, it's not that much different from working out to make your muscles stronger. A low level of tissue damage (which is why you hurt after a hard workout) is automatically "repaired" by the body's natural repair mechanisms, and the body becomes stronger after the repair. If you work out too much, you become weaker (because you've damaged your tissues), but if you don't work out at all, you become weaker because your tissues aren't maintained as well.

[Vitnir]

The homepage of RSH (http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/index.html) that sponsored that symposium gives of a faint smell of fruitcake.

The data that are consistently ignored by government agencies and their "review bodies."
Anyone know if anyone takes them serious?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by drkitten
...a single cancer-like cell isn't usually much of a problem, as most of the time (a key phrase), the cell can be quietly and efficiently disposed of. It's when such a cell manages to slip through the immune system's dragnet that a problem develops.The body's immune system is ineffective against cancers because the system works against foreign invaders. Since cancer is not foreign (they're your cancer cells), your immune system ignores it. Doesn't make any difference how strong your immune system is.

I'm no doctor, so if anyone with medical knowledge cares to correct me, go right ahead.

[Vitnir]

I think I have heard that cells are programmed to commit suicide if something goes wrong inside it. It could be that drkitten meant?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by BPSCG
The body's immune system is ineffective against cancers because the system works against foreign invaders. Since cancer is not foreign (they're your cancer cells), your immune system ignores it. Doesn't make any difference how strong your immune system is.


Again, this is oversimplified. There are mechanisms in place to clean up (i.e. get rid of) mutant cells.

[SquishyDave]

Well I got the stuff on the radiation.

For starters we live in a soup of radiation, we have radioactive elements in our body, in our food, in the ground, and coming from space, and have had this sea of radiation with us for all of earths history. The average adult person in Australia is exposed to 2,000 microsieverts a year. A sievert basically measures effective doses of radiation, as far as I can tell.

If this literature is true, it says that there are around 100,000 single-strand DNA breaks and coding lesions in every mammalian cell every day from metabolic and other bodily functions. If this is true, we'd better have a system in place to correct this or we would be a mass of tumors pretty quickly. Also, if you add a radiation dose of four times the Australian average, you increase this DNA damage by only 20 additional events per day. Seems like we should be able to cope with this.

But the double stand break is the big worry, of which there are few spontaneous ones, and the radiation dose I mentioned above, four times the Australian average, will produce forty times more double strand breaks than normal. The cell now becomes disfunctional. What happens now is the cell is indeed programmed to die, as mentioned above. This amount of radiation seems dangerous, causing forty times the double strand break, but is it?

There is only one way to find out if certain levels of radiation are dangerous, and that's by looking at people exposed to certain levels and seeing if their incidence of cancers is higher. In a book called "Radiation Hormesis" by Professor T D Luckey, published in 1981 he cited long term studies of nuclear industry workers, and Japanese atom-bomb surviviers that showed benefits. In 1993 Professor S Kondo in Japan wrote "Health Effects of Low-level Radiation" which had further support of the benefits of moderate doses of radiation.

In the U.S. a comparitive study of radiation levels and cancer mortality rates in three Gulf Coast states and three Rocky Mountain states was completed. The average natural background radiation level is over three times higher in the Rocky mountains, but the total cancer rate is 21 percent lower. Also the average Radon level is four to five times higher in the Rocky mountains, but the lung cancer rate was 31 percent lower.

Mainly the French have carried out experiments on unspecified organisms, where they removed and shielded all radiation that they possibly could, including in food I believe. The organisms tested under the low-radiation conditions exhibit poor health and fertility compared to control groups. The book did not specify what sort of organisms, it would be interesting to find out.

This information I got from a booklet called "Nuclear Radiation Exposed - A Guide to Better Understanding" by Colin Keay. I guess we now have to see if we can locate some of these studies and verify for ourselves if they seem reasonable.

[Loon]

Originally posted by SquishyDave

There is only one way to find out if certain levels of radiation are dangerous, and that's by looking at people exposed to certain levels and seeing if their incidence of cancers is higher. In a book called "Radiation Hormesis" by Professor T D Luckey, published in 1981 he cited long term studies of nuclear industry workers, and Japanese atom-bomb surviviers that showed benefits. In 1993 Professor S Kondo in Japan wrote "Health Effects of Low-level Radiation" which had further support of the benefits of moderate doses of radiation.

It is possible that, especially with the atomic bomb, those who survived the blast and the few years afterward did so because they had higher "resistance" to radiation. Perhaps the bomb acted as a selector for radiation resistance. Of course, I have not seen these studies.

I wonder if these studies compare background radiation during gestation with survivability or just location at time of survey. Seems to me that radiation in the fetal stages could have much bigger impact.

Originally posted by SquishyDave
In the U.S. a comparitive study of radiation levels and cancer mortality rates in three Gulf Coast states and three Rocky Mountain states was completed. The average natural background radiation level is over three times higher in the Rocky mountains, but the total cancer rate is 21 percent lower. Also the average Radon level is four to five times higher in the Rocky mountains, but the lung cancer rate was 31 percent lower.


Same as the second paragraph above. Additionally, what other things did they ahve to tease away from all of this? Could it be that mountain people are healthier or gulf coasters spend more time lying in the sun?

Originally posted by SquishyDave

Mainly the French have carried out experiments on unspecified organisms, where they removed and shielded all radiation that they possibly could, including in food I believe. The organisms tested under the low-radiation conditions exhibit poor health and fertility compared to control groups. The book did not specify what sort of organisms, it would be interesting to find out.


Again, what else did they deprive the organisms of. If sunlight is one of those things....


I find this fascinating. I'd love to hear more about it. Do you have any more stuff coming in on it, SquishyDave?


Zep, it's Boulder Montana, not Boudler Colorado. But I understand the confusion- Boulder has that rep...

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Loon


It is possible that, especially with the atomic bomb, those who survived the blast and the few years afterward did so because they had higher "resistance" to radiation. Perhaps the bomb acted as a selector for radiation resistance. Of course, I have not seen these studies.


Superficially, this is unlikely to be the case, as the original data cited controls for degree of radiation exposure (as measured by distance from the blast, in the atom bomb cases). The levels of interest in this context were not immediately lethal and would not have been expected to affect short-term survival.

[Dead God]

I posted an entry about this on my personal blog back in July and just recently the proponents of this form of therapy showed up and started arguing with me about the merits of it. Some of it's been pretty amusing. These folks are willing to take any shred of support as being the same as a mountain of proof.

[Vitnir]

One problem for sceptics is the number of disciplines of science, you just can't be an expert on all and be able to tell why this particular theory is ridiculous. I'm by no means an expert on radiation but I think I can smell the fruitcake in this hormesis theory. Despite the arguments above I think I will stay the hell away from radon gas in particular and radiation in general.

[CyCrow]

Originally posted by Vitnir
One problem for sceptics is the number of disciplines of science, you just can't be an expert on all and be able to tell why this particular theory is ridiculous. I'm by no means an expert on radiation but I think I can smell the fruitcake in this hormesis theory. Despite the arguments above I think I will stay the hell away from radon gas in particular and radiation in general.

If the theory is "ridiculous", then yes you usually can. Many crackpot theories need to blatantly abuse the scientific method, need to invent "new" physics, tend to put too much emphasis on selected data beyond statistical significance etc. While hormesis is currently not the "mainstream" for radiation, it is a well documented phenomenon. In fact, linear-no-threshold is the oddball model, as NO biological phenomenon is linear over a very large dose range. Low doses of ordinary table salt are neccessary to live, high doses will kill you. Most vitamins are toxic at high doses. Interestingly, it seems wikipedia has a rather hormesis-positive entry for radiation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation

Hopefully, science will be more important than politics in this matter.

// CyCrow

[SpaceFluffer]

Originally posted by SquishyDave
In the U.S. a comparitive study of radiation levels and cancer mortality rates in three Gulf Coast states and three Rocky Mountain states was completed. The average natural background radiation level is over three times higher in the Rocky mountains, but the total cancer rate is 21 percent lower. Also the average Radon level is four to five times higher in the Rocky mountains, but the lung cancer rate was 31 percent lower.
[/B]

1) Sample size?
2) Correlation does not equal causation! I can think of several reasons why people living in the Rocky mountains might be less susceptible to cancer...

Apparently people who live in areas when storks also live tend to have more babies. But I'm pretty sure that's not where babies come from.

Speaking as someone who's currently sitting in a mine with higher than normal Radon levels, I'd love it if it were good for me. Somehow I doubt it though.

[CyCrow]

Originally posted by Vitnir
Believers in Homerosis (At least I think that is the term) make the assumption that effects in cellular cultures can be applied to humans. What they "forget" is that human live a lot longer than a cell so humans are far more vulnerable to cancer. Its not a big risk they take, even a doubled or trippled risk for cancer won't show unless its a big study. Still, its a pretty insane idea to come up with.

This is wrong. In fact, it's the other way around. LNT proponents use the fact that the number of DNA-breaks is roughly linear in dose. In experiments carried out in vitro (cell cultures), there is no immune system, so the supposed hormesis mechanisms are not active. As you note, results from cell cultures is not applicable to living organisms. So it's the LNT-proponenents that get it wrong.

Another important issue is that using mice genetically modified to be susceptible cancers in these experiments will also give wrong results. These mice lack some of the natural anti-cancer mechanisms that hormesis is supposed to stimulate. Also, to show improved immune response from radiation, test animals must be exposed to natural amounts of pathogens, otherwise a stimulated immune-system won't help.

// CyCrow

[CyCrow]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
1) Sample size?
2) Correlation does not equal causation! I can think of several reasons why people living in the Rocky mountains might be less susceptible to cancer...

Apparently people who live in areas when storks also live tend to have more babies. But I'm pretty sure that's not where babies come from.

Speaking as someone who's currently sitting in a mine with higher than normal Radon levels, I'd love it if it were good for me. Somehow I doubt it though.

I'm not sure if this is the same study, but a large study of radon vs lung cancer by Bernard Cohen (homepage: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/ ) uses lung cancer rates vs radon levels for 1600 U.S. counties. Statistical analysis for confounding factors, the most dominant is of course smoking, failed to find factors that could explain the strong negative correllation between radon and lung cancer. This article is a good start, and shouldn't be too hard to read: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/%7Eblc/Cancer_risk.pdf

// CyCrow

[Anders]

Originally posted by SquishyDave
Well I got the stuff on the radiation.

For starters we live in a soup of radiation, we have radioactive elements in our body, in our food, in the ground, and coming from space, and have had this sea of radiation with us for all of earths history. The average adult person in Australia is exposed to 2,000 microsieverts a year. A sievert basically measures effective doses of radiation, as far as I can tell.

2000 micro Sievert increase the risk of getting Breast cancer with about 0,5%, Lukemea 0,4%. According to the ICRP.

Yes, the body can deal with small levels of gamma radiation. If we inhale for instance radon, gas which decay into radon daughters which stick to the vacuoles in the lungs, causing lung cancer in some cases. That the body can’t handle.

And also, every exposure to radiation increase the risk of cancer, every exposure!



If this literature is true, it says that there are around 100,000 single-strand DNA breaks and coding lesions in every mammalian cell every day from metabolic and other bodily functions. If this is true, we'd better have a system in place to correct this or we would be a mass of tumors pretty quickly. Also, if you add a radiation dose of four times the Australian average, you increase this DNA damage by only 20 additional events per day. Seems like we should be able to cope with this.

1 in 10⁹ base pairs are replicated wrong, naturally. There are about 3.2 billion base-pairs in the human genome, which makes the replication error: about 3.2 base-pairs that are replicated wrong, each time a cell divided. 3.2 times the number of cells makes it a lot more than 100’000 base-pair breaks. Luckily most of these errors don’t affect us.

Radiation can increase the numbers of errors made in the replication, and in some cases the cell can’t repair the error, hence we might have cancer cell.

The processes are not as simple that we can say that a certain level of radiation give rise to a specific number of DNA replication errors.

But we know that the higher level of radiation, the higher number of cancer cases.

But the double stand break is the big worry, of which there are few spontaneous ones, and the radiation dose I mentioned above, four times the Australian average, will produce forty times more double strand breaks than normal. The cell now becomes disfunctional. What happens now is the cell is indeed programmed to die, as mentioned above. This amount of radiation seems dangerous, causing forty times the double strand break, but is it?

There are higher numbers of malignt melanom cases in Australia due to the low level of ozon in that area.

There is only one way to find out if certain levels of radiation are dangerous, and that's by looking at people exposed to certain levels and seeing if their incidence of cancers is higher. In a book called "Radiation Hormesis" by Professor T D Luckey, published in 1981 he cited long term studies of nuclear industry workers, and Japanese atom-bomb surviviers that showed benefits. In 1993 Professor S Kondo in Japan wrote "Health Effects of Low-level Radiation" which had further support of the benefits of moderate doses of radiation.

Yes, nuclear industry workers live longer, most probably due to the fact that they make so much more money than average. Japanese atom-bomb survivors, well, they usually died with in a few days or hours after the blast, and thousands died during the clean up of contaminated area. I really don’t see how anyone could have benefited health-wise from radiation. I would say that the statistical data was erroneous. Further more the situation in Japan, especially around Hiroshima and Nagasaki was extremely chaotic during the aftermath of the bomb blasts.

In the U.S. a comparitive study of radiation levels and cancer mortality rates in three Gulf Coast states and three Rocky Mountain states was completed. The average natural background radiation level is over three times higher in the Rocky mountains, but the total cancer rate is 21 percent lower. Also the average Radon level is four to five times higher in the Rocky mountains, but the lung cancer rate was 31 percent lower.

Still, that is probably the famous thirds variable that’s responsible. People in the rookies and the Gulf Cost states lead better and healthier lives than for instance New Yorkers

Mainly the French have carried out experiments on unspecified organisms, where they removed and shielded all radiation that they possibly could, including in food I believe. The organisms tested under the low-radiation conditions exhibit poor health and fertility compared to control groups. The book did not specify what sort of organisms, it would be interesting to find out.

Hearsay and unverifiable data.

This information I got from a booklet called "Nuclear Radiation Exposed - A Guide to Better Understanding" by Colin Keay. I guess we now have to see if we can locate some of these studies and verify for ourselves if they seem reasonable.
Nothing so far has showed that the linear relation between radiation dose and cancer risk does not hold. Period. And ICRP and UNSCEAR do agree with me.

[CyCrow]

Originally posted by Anders
2000 micro Sievert increase the risk of getting Breast cancer with about 0,5%, Lukemea 0,4%. According to the ICRP.
...according to the Linear-No-Threshold Hypothesis. Which is not scientifically validated at low doses.

And also, every exposure to radiation increase the risk of cancer, every exposure!
That is a myth, perpetuated by anti-nuclear activists, scaremongering media and to some degree by regulatory bodies. Radiation increases hypothetical risk accoring to LNTH. Learn to know the difference.

The processes are not as simple that we can say that a certain level of radiation give rise to a specific number of DNA replication errors.
I believe the number of DNA-strand breaks is roughly linear in dose. But repair rate is nonlinear, and other factors make the jump from DNA-damage to cancer very complex.

But we know that the higher level of radiation, the higher number of cancer cases.

No we don't. Doses below 100mSv have never been shown to increase cancer incidence.

There are higher numbers of malignt melanom cases in Australia due to the low level of ozon in that area.
No, it's because white people from a country with very little sunshine (UK) emigrated to a tropical area. High-dose UV exposure causes skin cancer. No surpise there. It is pretty irrelevant to low-dose radiation exposure though. The amount of radiation neccessary to cause reddening of skin is way above "low dose", and well into non-hormetic levels.

Yes, nuclear industry workers live longer, most probably due to the fact that they make so much more money than average.
The studies compare matched groups of workers, not the general population. Please give the researchers some credit. This is not homeopaths trying to do science. Baseless assumptions of flaws in the studies are not useful.

Japanese atom-bomb survivors, well, they usually died with in a few days or hours after the blast, and thousands died during the clean up of contaminated area. I really don’t see how anyone could have benefited health-wise from radiation. I would say that the statistical data was erroneous. Further more the situation in Japan, especially around Hiroshima and Nagasaki was extremely chaotic during the aftermath of the bomb blasts.
The "survivors" that died within days were not "survivors" in the studies. Thousands died during the cleanup? Source please. A lot of people died from burns, wounds and radiation sickness after the bomb, but I have never heard of "thousands" of cleanup crew getting sick and dying.

Still, that is probably the famous thirds variable that’s responsible. People in the rookies and the Gulf Cost states lead better and healthier lives than for instance New Yorkers
Epidemiologists do take such factors into account, and try to find confounding factors. I mentioned the Cohen study above. Correcting for a lot of socioeconomic variables failed to remove the negative radon-lung cancer correlation. LNTH fails spectacularily.

Hearsay and unverifiable data.
Couldn't find a source for this research, but the results are certainly not unfalsifiable. Hormetic response is very common in biology. Should be a fairly easy experiment to do, so if it's not true, papers refuting the result would be published. Anyone have any references to this, pro or con?


Nothing so far has showed that the linear relation between radiation dose and cancer risk does not hold. Period. And ICRP and UNSCEAR do agree with me.
ICRP uses LNTH as a radiation protection policy. They know it's never been validated below 100mSv, and have "linearized" several results to fit their policy.

Here's a quote from NCRP Report 121 (11/30/95):

"...essentially no human data, can be said to provide direct support for the concept of collective dose with its implicit uncertainties of nonthreshold, linearity and dose-rate independence with respect to risk. The best that can be said is that most studies do not provide quantitative data that, with statistical significance, contradict the concept of collective dose...
Ultimately, confidence in the linear no threshold dose-response relationship at low doses is based on our understanding of the basic mechanisms involved. ...[Cancer] could result from the passage of a single charged particle, causing damage to DNA that could be expressed as a mutation or small deletion. It is a result of this type of reasoning that a linear nothreshold dose-response relationship cannot be excluded. It is this presumption, based on biophysical concepts, which provides a basis for the use of collective dose in radiation protection activities".

Clipped from this page: http://www.up.ac.za/saapmb38/pollycove1/pollycove1.htm

Pardon me if I sound a bit dismissive, but radiation is one of the areas where public perception is most at odds with reality. And public policy is not built on science, but on misinformation, fearmongering and ignorance. And vast amounts of money, effort and fossil fuels are wasted because of this.

// CyCrow

[Vitnir]

I don't think anyone says that the risks from radiation is overly dangerous and that we should all wear lead suits all the time to escape background radiation. I know that the risks to my health are stupid small compared to the known risk I take on friday as I open a can of beer even if I were to visit one of those radon mines. I don't oppose nuclear energy since I think the global warming and pollution is a bigger threat than nuclear plants but I would rather have wind and hydro power naturally. But at the same time, why the hell would I take the unecessary risk of exposing me to higher levels of radon than I have to? And whether you like it or not, there are plenty of data to support that radon isn't good for you.
Here from my own University: Pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11416777)
Here they were able to show significant risk of lung cancer at exposures at 140 Bq m-3 among people that never smoked. Is 140 Bq m-3 in hormesis range?

[CyCrow]

Originally posted by Vitnir
I don't think anyone says that the risks from radiation is overly dangerous and that we should all wear lead suits all the time to escape background radiation. I know that the risks to my health are stupid small compared to the known risk I take on friday as I open a can of beer even if I were to visit one of those radon mines. I don't oppose nuclear energy since I think the global warming and pollution is a bigger threat than nuclear plants but I would rather have wind and hydro power naturally. But at the same time, why the hell would I take the unecessary risk of exposing me to higher levels of radon than I have to? And whether you like it or not, there are plenty of data to support that radon isn't good for you.
Here from my own University: Pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11416777)
Here they were able to show significant risk of lung cancer at exposures at 140 Bq m-3 among people that never smoked. Is 140 Bq m-3 in hormesis range?

I couldn't access the complete paper, just the abstract. I'll cut and paste a comment from Radsafe. Discussion starts here: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/0106/msg00341.html

From: Tom Mohaupt [mailto:tom.mohaupt@WRIGHT.EDU]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 6:27 PM
To: Jim Nelson; RadSafe
Subject: Re: Radon and Never Smokers


Indeed an interesting study. Thanks Jim for bringing it to our
attention. Some comments:

1) The relative risks presented in Table 5 adjusted with missing data imputed. They state the relative risk as 1.55 for radon concentrations greater than 140 Bq/m^3. From Table 4, concentrations greater than 200 Bq/m^3 (with imputed data) give a RR of 1.067 [Cases: 13/258; Controls: 23/487]. Big difference. New math?

2) Looking over Table 4, there really isn't a discernible difference
between the cases and controls. Any differences in percentages can easily be swayed by one or two cases (or controls) improperly grouped.

3) It doesn't look like Sweden has a genuine radon problem. The control distribution of radon concentration should represent the country at large. In such case, less than 5% of the population is exposed to radon concentration more than 200 Bq/m^3 (the European action level for new construction) and 0.6% of the population is exposed to radon concentrations more than 400 Bq/m^3 ( the action level for existing structures).

4) I would have liked to see the authors include higher categories of radon concentrations, such as 800 and 1200 Bq/m^3, since these levels do exist and are biologically more important. Using administrative values as data cutoff point is OK as long as higher cutoff values are presented for comparison (i.e., 400 Bq/m^3 to infinity represents an enormous spectrum of concentrations).

Tom


Significant risk? You'll note that the error bars overlap, so both positive and negative trends are within the error bounds. As noted above, the dose ranges are also low. As I have said before, corrections for confounding factors, and even grouping of cases and controls can have a large effect.

It may be a cheap shot, but I'll play the conspiracy card... To get published in "mainstream" journals, results that are not clearly significant have to be compatible with the mainstream opinion. If the trend was inverted, these results would not be considered significant enough to be published. So I would consider this to be yet another "null" result, no clear association either way.

// CyCrow

[Vitnir]

A conspiracy? ....
right
good night

I'l emphasize again, the risks for the individual is neglible but on a national scale several hundred cases of lung cancer each year can attributed to radon in Sweden. In the US several thousand cases, 3 000 to 38 000 cases with a 95% confidence interval Link (http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/beirvi1.html)

[CyCrow]

Originally posted by Vitnir
A conspiracy? ....
right
good night

I'l emphasize again, the risks for the individual is neglible but on a national scale several hundred cases of lung cancer each year can attributed to radon in Sweden. In the US several thousand cases, 3 000 to 38 000 cases with a 95% confidence interval Link (http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/beirvi1.html)

The "conspiracy card" was tounge-in-cheek. But I still stand by the comment that there is publication bias at work. There is a lot of public prestige invested in the LNT model. Anti-nukes like it because it implies "no safe level", regulators like it because it is simple and easy to work with, and the public has accepted it as gospel. You will not get elected if you try to increase acceptable levels of radiation. I'll let this quote from your link speak for itself:


Extrapolation of Risks at Higher Exposures to Lower Exposures
Average exposures received by the miners in the epidemiologic studies are about one order of magnitude higher than average indoor exposures, although the lowest exposures of some miners overlap with some of the highest indoor exposures. To estimate risks of indoor radon exposures, it is thus necessary to make an assumption about the shape of the exposure-risk relationship across the lower range of the distribution of radon exposures.

The committee selected a linear-non-threshold relationship relating exposure to risk for the relatively low exposures at issue for indoor radon. This assumption has significant implications for risk projections. Support for this assumption came primarily from the committee's review of the mechanistic information on alpha-particle-induced carcinogenesis. Corroborating information included evidence for linearity in the miner studies at the lower range of exposures, and the linearity and magnitude of risk observed in the meta-analysis of the case-control studies, which was fully consistent with extrapolation of the miner data. Although a linear-non-threshold model was selected, the committee recognized that a threshold-that is, a level of exposure with no added risk-could exist and not be identifiable from the available epidemiologic data.


// CyCrow

[Vitnir]

I wouldn't use
The committee's model and general approach to assessing lung-cancer risks posed by indoor radon and cigarette-smoking are subject to considerable uncertainty because of gaps in our scientific knowledge of effects at low levels of exposure.
as proof that radon is safe to inhale. This is normal science jargon, it has to be weighted against the data that suggest that the link is true. If you want to play the devils advocate nothing is "sure". Gravity might stop working for all we know so it could be safe to jump off a cliff.
The bottom line is after all:
The carcinogenicity of radon is convincingly documented through epidemiologic studies of underground miners, all showing a markedly increased risk of lung cancer.
Your reply still sounds like that of a conspiracy theory, "publication bias" as explanation as to why your government want to protect you from lung cancer. They would give you a medal if you were able to save them the billions of dollars we are talking about.

[CyCrow]

Originally posted by Vitnir
I wouldn't use
The committee's model and general approach to assessing lung-cancer risks posed by indoor radon and cigarette-smoking are subject to considerable uncertainty because of gaps in our scientific knowledge of effects at low levels of exposure.
as proof that radon is safe to inhale. This is normal science jargon, it has to be weighted against the data that suggest that the link is true. If you want to play the devils advocate nothing is "sure". Gravity might stop working for all we know so it could be safe to jump off a cliff.
I don't. "Proof" is not the issue. But we both agree that there is a lot of difference between "considerable uncertainity" and the evidence for gravity. If you insist on the "Precautionary Principle", then you may assume low-level radon to be dangerous because it has not been "proven" safe. But if radiation hormesis is true, then it might be "risky" to decrease radon levels. I object against the assumption that LNT is true because it is public policy.

The bottom line is after all:
The carcinogenicity of radon is convincingly documented through epidemiologic studies of underground miners, all showing a markedly increased risk of lung cancer.

...at high doses. While there is some criticism of miner studies, because of other factors like arsenic and correction for smoking, I can accept the results as likely. Extending the results to low doses is not scientific.

Your reply still sounds like that of a conspiracy theory, "publication bias" as explanation as to why your government want to protect you from lung cancer. They would give you a medal if you were able to save them the billions of dollars we are talking about.
It is important who is paying the bill. The cost of radon mitigation would be primarily on house-owners. And when it comes down to laying down the cash, you will find that most people will accept a much higher hypothetical risk. In democracies, government policies will, and should, reflect public sentiment on a lot of issues. Politics isn't about saving money, it's about getting reelected. And regulatory agencies tend to develop self-perpetuating policies. Increasing allowable doses is not popular.

If there is a "dirty bomb" attack, the cleanup cost is going to depend on radiation standards. With current standards and perception ("There is no safe dose"), it would be extremely expensive. The terror effect is also dependent on public fear. It is likely that people injured in the blast would not recieve proper emergency treatment because of unfounded fear of radiation. It would be better to change policies and hopefully public perception before a multi-billion-dollar cleanup would be neccessary.

Back to the original subject, a double-blind experiment with radon mines against arthritis should be set up. I'm afraid it wouldn't qualify for the million if it turned out to work great, as there is nothing paranormal about it, but it could help a lot of people if it works. And it would be a kick in the butt to current policies.

// CyCrow