tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post1611565792995798062..comments2024-03-28T08:06:43.198-04:00Comments on The Silicon Graybeard: Another "That's Funny" About Radiation SiGraybeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280583031339062059noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-42711702000015935062019-01-16T07:38:31.126-05:002019-01-16T07:38:31.126-05:00It is an interesting question maybe because a rand...It <b>is</b> an interesting question maybe because a randomized, double-blind controlled trial just isn't possible or even ethical. All we can get are population studies from something like the occasional Chernobyl or Fukushima (and thank God they're occasional!)<br /><br />Population studies are notoriously misleading because of factors that aren't considered and nothing can be controlled for. The diet/health world is full of them - almost nothing but bad studies. Here, all the researchers know is that people in one ring around the blast areas had lower relative mortality rates than those closer in or farther out. It seems hard to believe it was something to do with the people, e.g., all one genetic background, and just as hard to believe it was something in the physical environment such as a mineral in the ground, or water or something. In the case of Chernobyl, we know that the ecosystem hasn't collapsed but has become an oasis of wildlife not seen elsewhere in the region. I have to assume that's partly due to lack of pressure from people in the area. But it also bears a resemblance to something like our homeostasis systems that keep the processes in our bodies working within strict limits, only on an ecosystem level.<br /><br />It's possible that the radiation had nothing to do with the lower mortality rates around the bomb sites, but that something else that happened to those people was what did it. Perhaps famine while waiting for rescue and supplies, is what made the difference. The 2016 Nobel prize in medicine was awarded for the discovery of autophagy - "self-eating" - how the body "cleanses itself" of damaged or unneeded cells during fasting. Perhaps radiation damaged cells were destroyed during starvation after the bombing. <br /><br />I'm a fan of the saying that the most important things in science don't follow "Eureka, I found it!" but rather, "that's funny..." and following up on the oddity. The "that's funny" things are where you get some effect named after you, or a new field is discovered. More often you find you screwed up the measurement or the math. This is a "that's funny". <br />SiGraybeardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280583031339062059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-76599804597096917602019-01-15T23:44:46.140-05:002019-01-15T23:44:46.140-05:00Interesting question.
I am always thinking of t...Interesting question. <br /><br />I am always thinking of this as firing a rifle round into an aircraft and hoping its capabilities would improve. Maybe if the administered radiation was part of a chemical or drug that guided the hot stuff to somewhere useful. If we where that was.<br /><br />As far as radiology technicians, all the ones that I have seen or known step behind a shield before pressing the "On" button. One of my step sons spent years on a team that implanted pacemakers and defibrillators using fluoroscopes and x-ray devices. He has a new job and was over-joyed to give away his lead gown, apron and face shield. Older kiddie docs [now mostly gone] and nurses frequently had "burned" hands from holding infants still for X-rays. <br /><br />Colorado is a strange place. Assessing the effects of radiation might require factoring in age and duration of exposure, Oxygen stress, composition of drinking water, composition of air borne dust, food sources, immune status, etc. <br /><br />In Colorado you might be able to do population studies if you could get the funding. Administering systemic doses of radiation as part of a long term study is likely to get you in prison or shot. ANYTHING that happened to test subjects would be "your" fault.<br /><br />Interesting, however. Maybe if you knew what you were actually trying to accomplish, a precision delivery system [probably chemical, e.g. a targeted drug such as those used for functional MRI] might be useful and keep you out of prison or the morgue. <br /><br />And then there is the matter of the off-spring of the test subjects [One head or two?]. <br /><br />Sounds interesting, although your [academic] children or grandchildren will get to write the report. <br /><br />It sounds like understanding the target system would be more useful than "dropping the bomb" and crossing your fingers.Mike-SMOnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-902534874567278102019-01-15T14:21:22.330-05:002019-01-15T14:21:22.330-05:00Thanks for that summary. It sounds supremely beli...Thanks for that summary. It sounds supremely believable - that really seems to be the way standards get set. Which is one reason people still argue over standards for non-ionizing radiation, such as whether or not they should be in a house with a WiFi router. <br /><br />Depending on how one sets their "precautionary principle", you get the majority of Western countries with one set of limits that agree pretty well, and another few countries that set limits 1/10 or 1/100 of the majority. Can they prove the higher limit causes harm? Can anyone prove it doesn't? <br /><br /><i>Some sixty years later, we have better data but discussion of a threshold or even hormesis is not permitted outside certain areas of health physics, and no one will fund any research or compilation of existing data from radiation workers.</i> This is probably the same for the study of pilots and flight attendants that Ole Grump suggested above. (1/8 at 1506) Yet we know that <i>Colorado, with 15-20% higher natural radiation than surrounding states, has a lower cancer rate than the states with lower radiation. </i>SiGraybeardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280583031339062059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-48130122786225710212019-01-15T13:46:34.826-05:002019-01-15T13:46:34.826-05:00The no safe level of (man made) radiation (Linear ...The no safe level of (man made) radiation (Linear No Threshold) approach is a leftover from the Manhattan Project and the immediate post war era. With an expanding nuclear industry, a set of standards for exposure to ionizing radiation and radioactive element was needed quickly. There was a some data on high levels of exposure from bomb survivors and accidents. Research was on going for low level exposures in workers and animals but to come to a conclusion on this research would take years or even decades. Atomic workers were being exposed now and administrative limits were needed now. The available data indicated a linear correlation between absorbed dose and biological effect. Those early scientists assumed that like other toxins and insults to the body there was threshold below which there would be no detrimental effects. The problem was that there wasn't enough data to reliably determine that threshold. The solution was to assume the linear effect extended to zero. Everyone knew that was wrong, but it was conservative. Based on anecdotal observations of workers and those living in high background areas, an exposure below which only minimal changes were observed, a high safety factor was selected, and this became the occupational limit, an additional factor was used an this became the public exposure limit. Note the the limits excluded medical exposure.<br /><br />As nuclear energy became a fixture of modern life and politics reared its ugly head, the linear no threshold model became an icon of the antinuclear movement. After all if there is no safe level of radiation exposure, why are you building nuclear power plants. Some sixty years later, we have better data but discussion of a threshold or even hormesis is not permitted outside certain areas of health physics, and no one will fund any research or compilation of existing data from radiation workers.Nuke Road Warriorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01122662466990452477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-29243694645695650002019-01-12T21:01:29.566-05:002019-01-12T21:01:29.566-05:00My "Radiological Science for Technologists&qu...My "Radiological Science for Technologists" textbook says the population of radiological technologists (normal people call 'em X-ray techs) has no greater incidence of cancer than the general population.<br /><br />I ran the numbers and realized getting my Maximum Daily Dose would bring me to my Maximum Lifetime Limit just as I wanted to retire. I could be careless and have an excuse to retire earlier rather than later. Win-win. If I had stayed in X-ray, maybe I would be healthier than I am now...Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09800106790176447938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-11426918392679954482019-01-08T22:03:05.268-05:002019-01-08T22:03:05.268-05:00Research on radiation improving crop yields was al...Research on radiation improving crop yields was all the rage in the 1930s and 1940s. One could find pictures of irradiated seed potatoes producing twice as much as regular seed potatoes.<br /><br />The conventional thinking, now, is that radiation at appropriate levels removed the latent virus from the seed potatoes. Imagine a clone of you with the flu or a severe head cold competing with a non-impaired version of you.<br /><br />This may have been the genesis of the Captain America and Spiderman meme, super-human performance as a result of appropriate radiation.<br /><br />Just another perspective on history.Eaton Rapids Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09102166969915526172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-130796193673636652019-01-08T15:06:04.077-05:002019-01-08T15:06:04.077-05:00Perhaps a longitudinal study of airline pilots and...Perhaps a longitudinal study of airline pilots and flight attendants with a cut into groups of five years exposure would shed light on the question.Ole Grumphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02332032222450924224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-54607446693938443542019-01-08T12:24:58.486-05:002019-01-08T12:24:58.486-05:00All other substances have some level of 'no ha...All other substances have some level of 'no harm' dose (even if some people don't admit it), so logically radiation must also. <br />After all, radio waves and other ionizing radiation have acceptable doses, so nuclear radiation must also.Jonathan Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10476185257203343474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-54614245547639983282019-01-08T08:52:24.626-05:002019-01-08T08:52:24.626-05:00What we do know is that the current standards for ...What we do know is that the current standards for acceptable radiation exposure are insane. Sleeping next to your spouse exposes you to unacceptable levels of radiation emitted from the human body.McChuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10243337792601085456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-28311634704311879842019-01-08T02:24:38.262-05:002019-01-08T02:24:38.262-05:00The problem with radiation and long term effects i...The problem with radiation and long term effects is it is VERY difficult to study.<br />We have a decent handle on the outcomes from higher level exposures but it's virtually impossible to study low level exposures over time because it's not possible to control for ALL the variables. And ethics also is an issue. How many people are going to sign up to be dosed with low levels of radiation just to see what MIGHT happen 30 years in the future. And while the government could and has done such studies unethically on people it's not very good science. To prove hormesis one must be able to assign cause and effect. We still can't assign cause and effect to the negative outcomes from low level exposure. It's almost impossible to say that Leukemia A in 2015 was caused by Cat Scan B done in 1980. There may have been some other trigger for the disease. The ONLY methodology we have for low level radiation outcomes is LARGE population studies where you compare the populatio downwind from say Chernobyl or Fukushima over a period of time to a similar control of unexposed people. These studies usually show an increase in some types of cancers, specifically thyroid and leukemia over time. But even then there are OTHER CAUSES for such cancers that contribute to inaccuracies. So while the theory of hormesis is not debunked it's virtually impossible to prove. Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-50436354404768967562019-01-08T00:29:17.477-05:002019-01-08T00:29:17.477-05:00There is a good article here at: https://gettingst...There is a good article here at: https://gettingstronger.org/hormesis/<br />The EPA, of course, denies there are "good" levels of anything they have labeled toxic, but the article states that even dioxin - treated as one of the nastiest substances in their lexicon of toxic substances - can be beneficial in low doses, as shown by testing with rats, anyway.<br /><br />This has been known to medicine for thousands of years. Cults that have dealt with poisonous snakes have indicated that getting small doses over a period of time can provide immunity from a bite that injects a large amount that would normally be fatal. As a child back in the fifties, I was treated with small injected amounts of substances to which I was allergic. After getting those injections bi-weekly for about a year (IIRC), I developed the ability to tolerate exposure to them - possibly an actual immunity to some, if not all, of those substances.<br /><br />So it isn't difficult for me to accept it could be so with radiation as well. I don't know how someone would set parameters on what amount would lead to beneficial amounts as opposed to those which would cause significant sickening and/or death, but it's good to know that ol' Nietzsche might have been right about _something_. :-)Reg Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14099612693763932005noreply@blogger.com