Yup – no safe minimum dosage – thats the scientific concensus

Low level radiation dosage is cumulative and mutagenic with no safe minimum dosage..

The body is well able to repair DNA damage, there is only accumulation if the repair mechanisms are faulty or the level of damage exceeds the capacity of repair.
In addition, a ‘mutation’ does not imply damage or disfunction at the cellular or somatic level – you’re terminology is loose, bordering on hysterical, and your argument accordingly weakened…….

Yup – no safe minimum dosage – thats the scientific concensus

Not proven then, just an opinion. 🙄

the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) wrote in its 2000 report[12]

Until the […] uncertainties on low-dose response are resolved, the Committee believes that an increase in the risk of tumour induction proportionate to the radiation dose is consistent with developing knowledge and that it remains, accordingly, the most scientifically defensible approximation of low-dose response. However, a strictly linear dose response should not be expected in all circumstances.

You know – I think I prefer what the experts say

don simon – Member

Not proven then, just an opinion

Not only unproven, but factually and contextually incorrect

Would that be the same the United Nations committee (UNSCEAR) that you rubbished the Chernobyl death figures from TJ? 😆 you should be more careful with your sources 🙄

Its utter rubbish, I happily worked with low level radioactive compounds for years – like I say, its a ridiculous statistical trick of extrapolation.

You do realise that we’re all exposed to radiation all day every day don’t you TJ 😯

Raelly hilldodger? You know better than the experts? 🙄

ah well – this was a reasonable debate. I think I will leave it now as its clearly going to go downhill now the personal attacks are flying and the semi detached loony has arrived.

TandemJeremy – Member
You know – I think I prefer what the experts say

Well I worked here for 4 years, researching DNA damage and repair mechanisms and can categorically say “you are wrong”
trust me I’m an expert 😉

TandemJeremy – Member
Raelly hilldodger? You know better than the experts?

I know better than your experts, if you want to run away then do so in ignorance and denial…

You know better than the experts

Well, you knew better than the same experts on the total number of deaths related to Chernobyl TJ!

Hoist with your own petard 😆

So hilldodger the UNSCEAR report is wrong? the United States Environmental Protection Agency is wrong? the US national academy of science is wrong?

this is their conclusiuon

Despite the challenges associated with understanding the health effects of low doses of low-LET radiation, current knowledge allows several conclusions. The BEIR VII committee concludes that current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a linear dose-response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of radiation-induced solid cancers in humans. The committee further judges it unlikely that a threshold exists for the induction of cancers but notes that the occurrence of radiation-induced cancers at low doses will be small.

Not running away – just trying to learn the lessons and I will not be baited into debate with you and I know how unprofitable attempting to debate with the semi detached zulu is.

It is interesting tho that you declare yourself to know better than the people I have quoted – that three pretty authoritative sources.

I wonder if its just you are out of date as views on this have changed over the years.

TandemJeremy – Member

Raelly hilldodger? You know better than the experts? 🙄

And

ah well – this was a reasonable debate. I think I will leave it now as its clearly going to go downhill now the personal attacks are flying and the semi detached loony has arrived.

In all seriousness Tandem, there is only one person making personal attacks and they are hardly flying, a good long hard look at youself is in order I think, a good dose of MingTFU is in order.

and I know how unprofitable attempting to debate with the semi detached zulu is.

Well TJ, its certainly unprofitable you trying to debate with me when your argument is complete and utter horse faeces 😆

So hilldodger the UNSCEAR report is wrong? the United States Environmental Protection Agency is wrong? the US national academy of science is wrong?

Yes, it’s an out of date report with hedge your bets conclusions designed to protect the decision makers against potential litigation.

Low-dose-rate low-LET radiation has recently been shown to induce cellular adaptation to neoplastic changes, Low-LET radiation only causes single strand breaks which are readily repaired both in vitro and in vivo, plenty of recent publications (2008 to date) on the subject.
Try googling Fast neutron therapy for starters…..

So what devices at home justify creating low-level radiation whilst powering them?

Don – just have a look at the last few posts especially from Zulu.

if you want to run away then do so in ignorance and denial…

Its (the UNSCEAR report) utter rubbish,

utter balls

You’d better move the **** out of Edinburgh then! All that Granite, somebody could drop dead!

thats really an invitation to reasonable debate.

Hilldodger

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=10

2006

The BEIR VII committee concludes that current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a linear dose-response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of radiation-induced solid cancers in humans. The committee further judges it unlikely that a threshold exists for the induction of cancers but notes that the occurrence of radiation-induced cancers at low doses will be small. The committee maintains that other health effects (such as heart disease and stroke) occur at high radiation doses, but additional data must be gathered before an assessment can be made of any possible connection between low doses of radiation and noncancer health effects. Additionally, the committee concludes that although adverse health effects in children of exposed parents (attributable to radiation-induced mutations) have not been found, there are extensive data on radiation-induced transmissible mutations in mice and other organisms. Thus, there is no reason to believe that humans would be immune to this sort of harm.

TandemJeremy – Member

I wonder if its just you are out of date as views on this have changed over the years.

Actually Jeremey, I’m pretty much cutting edge on this, whether or not you choose to accept this is your perogative of course.
But at least you acknowledge that “views can change” – that’s a concept you may wish to explore further 😉

TandemJeremy – Member
Hilldodger

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=10

2006

out of date.

Indeed – do you really believe there is a threshold below which radiation has no effect?

What’s the problem there? If you have the ability to demonstrate that Z11 is wrong, do it, but don’t start bleating. It’s hardly any worse than trying to brow people with consensus dressed up as fact, is it? Or telling people they don’t know what they’re talking about simply because you can’t acccept what they’re saying.

EDIT: I read a comment today with reference to he who casts the first stone, or something on those lines.

TandemJeremy – Member
Indeed – do you really believe there is a threshold below which radiation has no effect?

No, it has an effect, but not a permanent damaging one – and in many cases a positive one

Radiat Res. 2008 Mar;169(3):311-8.
Low doses of very low-dose-rate low-LET radiation suppress radiation-induced neoplastic transformation in vitro and induce an adaptive response.
Elmore E, Lao XY, Kapadia R, Giedzinski E, Limoli C, Redpath JL.
Source
Department of Radiation Oncology and Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Irvine, Irvine, California 92697, USA.

Have dozens of similar articles on my work PC, but I’m sure you can use Pub Med…

TandemJeremy – Member
just trying to learn the lessons

The first step in learning is being prepared to listen with an open mind – I’m a professional scientist with access to work in progress and direct current experience of this subject, you have a Google toolbar – go figure…..

Don – have yo never seen zulu debate? Its a pointless exercise.

Hilldodger -crossed posts

I’m looking forward to seeing how far TJ can Google himself out of his depth on this one.

Chai anyone?

I have an athens password.

Woooooo!

TJ, I apologise for ridiculing you and offending you.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSHaCzb3yYk[/video]

Even though I stand by my comment that your argument is utter bullocks. Now, back to proving me wrong 😆

Don – have yo never seen zulu debate? Its a pointless exercise.

No I haven’t, I’m a relative newbie here. Do you mean he disagrees with you?

Interesting hilldodger.

TandemJeremy – Member
Interesting hilldodger

You’re welcome 😉

Interesting hilldodger.

Sorry, can I just check… is that your way of accepting that you’re wrong TJ ❓

I have to say that the effects you mention there are specifically dismissed in some of the other stuff I have read.

I am aware there are two schools of thought on this but in recent years the no threshold effect has held sway and the idea there is a threshold and there can be beneficial effects at very low doses was not accepted – are you telling me its swung round again in the last couple of years? Or its this still a minority view?

Ah, no, it wasn’t then 😆

Zulu – strange it may seem to you I am actually listening and thinking and asking questions to find out more.

Thats funny TJ – because earlier on this evening you were making categoric statements and saying other people were wrong 😉

TandemJeremy – Member
I am aware there are two schools of thought on this but in recent years the no threshold effect has held sway and the idea there is a threshold and there can be beneficial effects at very low doses was not accepted – are you telling me its swung round again in the last couple of years? Or its this still a minority view?

I’m saying that there is still no consensus.

At Sussex we were studying xeroderma pigmentosum, Cockayne Syndrome and trichothiodystrophy (try saying that after a beer or two!!) with specific focus on DNA repair and Low-LET therapy potential.
I’ve since moved on but am still in regular touch with the lab and the view (which probably is still a minority one) is that there is definitely a swing towards the position that DNA repair capacity in vivo has been seriously underestimated, primarily due to the use of small mammals with modified genomes (either by selective breeding or the use of “knockout” animals with induced deletions).

Meta studies will always favour the view with the highest publication citations, doesn’t mean they’re correct just that they’re acceptable rather than challenging……

…anyway it’s late, I’m tired so enough for me – I’ll no doubt see the thread lumbering on tomorrow so may be back 😕

mr blobbby – far more people killed by chernobyl – tens if not hundreds of thousands – and its still killing people as fukoshima will kill people for decades

Yeah it is true, actually almost all of the eastern people have died in the Chernobyl incident… All but the remaining few in the UK, the very last of their kinds.

You do shout a lot of clobbers tj, but this one as to be the best.

Hilldodger – Ta for that.

Juan – look at the references I gave on that. A UN report with avery tight remit has 9000 deaths

Cherry picking results in a saving of £200 based on a family of four using 200l a year of water at 50°C.

WOW see it’s people like you that give the French a bad name in terms of cleaning.
We are three and we go through a 150L of hot water everyday…

A UN report please, TJ, at least do as hilldoger does, provide “real” evidence…

In September 2005, a draft summary report by the Chernobyl Forum, comprising a number of UN agencies including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), other UN bodies and the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, put the total predicted number of deaths due to the accident at 4000.[34] This death toll predicted by the WHO included the 47 workers who died of acute radiation syndrome as a direct result of radiation from the disaster and nine children who died from thyroid cancer, in the estimated 4000 excess cancer deaths expected among the 600,000 with the highest levels of exposure.[41] The full version of the WHO health effects report adopted by the UN, published in April 2006, included the prediction of 5000 additional fatalities from significantly contaminated areas in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine and predicted that, in total, 9000 will die from cancer among the 6.9 million most-exposed Soviet citizens.[35] This report is not free of controversy, and has been accused of trying to minimize the consequences of the accident.[42]

this is a very tightly drawn remit that ignores many areas that were contaminated so is an underestimate even if we accept ta threshold exists below which radion does not cause cancers

also – New York Academy of Sciences publication

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment is an English translation of the 2007 Russian publication Chernobyl. It was published online in 2009 by the New York Academy of Sciences in their Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. It presents an analysis of scientific literature and concludes that medical records between 1986, the year of the accident, and 2004 reflect 985,000 deaths as a result of the radioactivity released. The authors suggest that most of the deaths were in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, but others were spread through the many other countries the radiation from Chernobyl struck.[46] The literature analysis draws on over 1,000 published titles and over 5,000 internet and printed publications discussing the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. The authors contend that those publications and papers were written by leading Eastern European authorities and have largely been downplayed or ignored by the IAEA and UNSCEAR.[47] Author Alexy V. Yablokov was also one of the general editors on the Greenpeace commissioned report also criticizing the Chernobyl Forum finds published one year prior to the Russian language version of this report.

Loads of other data inbweteen these including the TORCH report and so on.

I think to say tens of thousands of deaths maybe hundreds of thousands is not a ridiculous position.