Chernobyl Hints Radiation May Be Less Dangerous than Thought (opens in new tab)

One thing I did not see mentioned in the article, and which seems to never make it into most articles about the risks (or hypothetical benefits) of radiation exposure, is the massive amount of information we have about the effects of radiation from radiation oncology. Six times as many people as were exposed at Hiroshima are irradiated on purpose in the USA alone every year. And the radiation is actually measured and planned. So Hiroshima is so far from our largest or best data set it is funny. I don't have numbers, but I'm willing to bet that more patients have had radiation treatment for non-cancerous diseases than exist in the Hiroshima cohort.

Epidemiology isn't one of my specialties, but radon and radiation measurement actually are. I'm skeptical about the radon baths, simply because that is NOT a low level of radon, in the sense of a statistically uncertain long-term hazard level. A typical radon bath is in the thousands of pCi/L, which is about a thousand times higher than the level at which mitigation would be required for health reasons for a dwelling. However, the amount of time spent there is low. So, it is like having a non-smoker smoke a thousand cigarettes all at once, instead of over the course of a year. Might that kick-start something in their body? Certainly, but it does not fall under the normal hormesis rubric. And alpha particle damage tends to be high and localized.

Paracelsus said the dose makes the poison, which is true. But in addition, time makes the dose. I have no problem drinking 100 liters of water over a few months, but that would be a fatal dose in an hour. More attention needs to be paid to the time component of radiation dosing and threshold effects.

This is a pretty terrible article on many levels:

- It says "Chernobyl hints", but there is no information about Chernobyl. The article itself says "We simply do not know" how many people died of cancer due to Chernobyl.

- The Radon spa study is very poor. We already know that going to any type of spa is going to improve your immune system, mainly due to the psychological effects. There was no control group in the experiment, so we have no idea if the radon had any effect.

- We already know that low-level radon exposure increases lung cancer risk.

See my answer here: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/2490/1792

tl;dr: "There is empirical evidence that suggests that low to medium amounts of absorbed gamma radiation boosts immunity and resilience to ailments such as heart disease, though it may (or may not) increase rates of cancer. It has been suggested and that the reduction in the probability of death from other diseases offsets the increased probability of death from cancer."

This article from 10/2015 in AAAS is also interesting:

"Humans are worse than radiation for Chernobyl animals, study finds"

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/humans-are-worse-radi...

You might look up radiation hormesis. It is very well documented in animal studies. Damage causes cellular repair mechanisms to undertake more work, and if the damage is little and brief, then there is a net gain in quality control. Less dysfunction, longer healthspan, longer life.

It operates in humans because all other mechanisms of hormesis operate in humans. All very well documented.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477686/

"Three aspects of hormesis with low doses of ionizing radiation are presented: the good, the bad, and the ugly. The good is acceptance by France, Japan, and China of the thousands of studies showing stimulation and/or benefit, with no harm, from low dose irradiation. This includes thousands of people who live in good health with high background radiation. The bad is the nonacceptance of radiation hormesis by the U. S. and most other governments; their linear no threshold (LNT) concept promulgates fear of all radiation and produces laws which have no basis in mammalian physiology. The LNT concept leads to poor health, unreasonable medicine and oppressed industries. The ugly is decades of deception by medical and radiation committees which refuse to consider valid evidence of radiation hormesis in cancer, other diseases, and health. Specific examples are provided for the good, the bad, and the ugly in radiation hormesis."

We've known for a long time the LNT model doesn't reflect reality. It's still used because we don't have anything better, it's simple, and people like to put numbers on things even if the numbers are known to be wrong.

I was just asking how well researched an article like this is, if the get the name of the town wrong. It might be an autocorrect typo, but "Bad Steven" is, was and will be "Bad Steben" (some 20 or so miles from my hometown).

I know, that I just attack a small detail here and that this is not a valid way to argue against something, but I have difficulties trusting some journalist who gets these basics wrong.

A previous discussion:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11060101

Recent large-scale research suggests dose-risk relationship holds at small doses for leukemia:

http://www.nature.com/news/researchers-pin-down-risks-of-low...

Missleading titel - Alternative suggestions:

DNA Repair facilitys more effective then previously assumed. DNA filled with more trash that wont be missed. DNA-DamageDice-Game proves no existing instinct for statistics

My grandfather (he is 91 now) was heavily into radon-research, i still remember measuring those watersamples and hearing the lab-equipment count the plibs when that gas fell apart in the sensoric chamber.

He presumed it to be healthy, but the number of times you roll the DNA-Destructive Dice is still limited, before you come up with a Full House (cancer).

So gamble nature if you must (for example because some asthma makes your lungs half-unuseable), but be aware of the statistics.

Thyroid cancer is strongly connected with Iodine-131 contamination, which is basically off in a week or so (decay half-life of about eight days). But if you were exposed, the risk is significant. That we learned from Chernobyl very well. But there is no hint about that in the article.

Here's some living proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kg4vVYKc90

This lady is bitten by a radioactive ant, live on camera.... near Chernobyl.

Humans evolved in sunlight receiving constant low doses of radiation. It seems logical to me that something in which is part of, the environment a species evolved to, would tend to have positive effects.

Again? googling site:ycombinator.com "radiation hormesis" gives 15 stories where this has been discussed.

tl;dr No.

> Darmstadt biologist Fournier believes the question is misguided. "Something that strengthens the cells doesn't necessarily help a person," she says. "If it mutates, this cell can later be the source of cancer."

Making the claim "Radioactivity is good for them." without any additional qualification seems irresponsible. One might similarly claim that eating fried chicken and bacon everyday is "good" for someone because it makes them feel happy. Of course, this ignores the fact that doing so dramatically increases their risk of heart disease. Overall, this article seems to be written for the layman, where all forms of radiation are created equal (untrue). The research that the article describes may very well show that sustained low exposure to alpha particle radiation reduces symptoms of arthritis. It should stop there though rather than make judgement as to whether or not it is good or bad.