X-Message-Number: 32116
From: 
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:45:50 EDT
Subject: Re: Radiation

Dr. Bernard Cohen of the U. of Chicago (now Pittsburg) has spent decades  
studying the effect of varying levels of background radiation on health and  
lifespan. The bottom line, to the dismay of the anti-nukes, is that 

radiation is  good. The hypothesis is that hormiosis (sp?), the stimulation of 
the 
immune  system by small amounts of toxins or other insults, makes it better 
able to  fight off real challenges.
 
See _http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/article50.html_ 

(http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/article50.html)    or just Google  Bernard cohen
radiation.
 
Note there are two theories of radiation damage. One says if 1000 rems  

kills everyone then 1 rem will kill one in a thousand and .1 rem one in 10,000.
 This is the linear theory. The other is the old "The dose makes the 

poison", and  says if drinking 10 liters of water at a sitting kills you (and it
probably  does) then drinking one liter -- is good for you and keeps you from 
dying of  thirst. And there is probably no damage at all from .1 rem of 
radiation. This is  the threshold theory -- below a certain amount there is no 
harm and maybe a  benefit.
 
The truth has never been proved. Twenty or thirty years ago there was an  
experiment with thousands of mice at low levels of radiation, and trying to  
autopsy jillions of them for tumors, but it was a debacle and never  

completed.  All we know is Cohen's work that consistently shows people  exposed 
to 
more background radiation live longer and have less cancer. E.g. we  in the 
Rocky Mountain States, being a mile closer to the Sun and cosmic  radiation 
(i.e. a mile less thick atmosphere to absorb radiation) and near many  

deposits of uranium etc., get more (twice?) the radiation of those at sea level,
and we live longer and have less cancer. I don't recall the exact numbers;  
haven't looked at it in years.
 
Alan Mole
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 10/31/2009 3:01:21 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,  
 writes:

Message  #32115
From: "John de Rivaz" <>
References:  <>
Subject: Re: chronic  radiation 
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:39:33 -0000

If the data is  easily available, it might be worth looking at average 

lifespans for those  living in areas affected by natural radiation from mineral
sources such as  granite or gravel soils as opposed to those areas with less 
natural  radiation.  If generally available data produces some sort of 
result this  may be sufficient to get funding for a more precise one.

However to be  really effective such a study would need to be limited to 
long term residents  -- most people "relocate" ie move house very frequently 
these days. Also, of  course, other causes of death such as accident need to 
be removed.

--  
Sincerely, John de Rivaz:  http://John.deRivaz.com for websites  including
Cryonics Europe, Longevity Report, The Venturists, Porthtowan,  Alec Harley
Reeves - inventor, Arthur Bowker - potter, de Rivaz  genealogy,  Nomad .. 
and
more
----- Original Message -----  
From: CryoNet 
To:  
Sent:  Friday, October 30, 2009 9:00 AM
Subject: CryoNet #32112 -  #32113




 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32116