• Steve H. Hanke
    05/04/2016 - 08:00
    Authored by Steve H. Hanke of The Johns Hopkins University. Follow him on Twitter @Steve_Hanke. A few weeks ago, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) sprang a surprise. It announced that a...

Cumulative Low-Level Doses of Radiation Can Cause Big Problems

George Washington's picture

Your rating: None

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 04/06/2011 - 20:06 | 1143401 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

GW, what part of TID don't you get?  "Total Integrated Dose" is the metric of interest.

like 300 mrem/year for flatlanders.  More for those flying intercontintental (w/significant time > 30k ft/agl) plus medical doses.

- Ned

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 14:37 | 1142049 gaoptimize
gaoptimize's picture

Everyone should be aware that the nasty chemical soup in the ionization trail of high energy daughter prouducts (electrons, gamma rays, alpha particles) are mostly responsible for the tissue damage caused by radioactivity.  There are things you should be doing as a matter of daily health that can minimize the consequences of exposure to radiation and polutants.

Unless you have an allergy or potential drug interaction, everyone should be taking the best combination of natural anti-oxidants you can afford every day.  Among these are (in rough order of efficacy):

fresh coffee hull

tart cherry

bark of the Canadian maritime pine


resveratrol (grape seed and skin extract)

acai berry

green tea

saw palmeto

vitamine C

fish oil

and many more from fresh fruits and vegatables, new one are being discovered and assessed every year, even a cup of coffee may offer some anti-oxidant protection.  I'm not a doctor or a pharmacist, but the science and experience strongly suggests this is a healthy thing to do, radiation or not.  Big pharma will not do clinical trials or push this as it is not patentable.


Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:48 | 1143173 psychologicalmess
psychologicalmess's picture

Just one question:  Are you a rep. for Swanson, Nature Made, Nature's Bounty, or some other vitamin co.?

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 14:25 | 1142017 Rockfish
Rockfish's picture

What is Radon and why is it a risk? Radon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon low level slow accumulation.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 13:12 | 1145854 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

I ust hope we dont see Rodan rise up out of the ocean.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 14:24 | 1142003 onlooker
onlooker's picture

Good work George.  thanks

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 14:04 | 1141914 AR15AU
AR15AU's picture

Debunking myth? Or batting down straw men again?

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 14:03 | 1141904 tomster0126
tomster0126's picture

NOBODY EAT SEAFOOD IN HAWAII! Scary shit, is anybody else stocking up on potassium iodide?


Wed, 04/06/2011 - 13:32 | 1141744 MarketTruth
MarketTruth's picture

Food for thought: Mammograms... do they detect or actually cause breast cancer over time.


Wed, 04/06/2011 - 13:25 | 1141723 tamboo
tamboo's picture

ironically rife used discarded xray tubes to create a cancer curing device. a few of those might come in real handy right about now.


Wed, 04/06/2011 - 14:03 | 1141906 chunga
chunga's picture

Royal Rife was an amazing, brilliant man. All he ever wanted to do was find a cure for cancer...and I believe he did...and delivered it to the world free of charge. "Coordinative Resonance". Similar to an opera singer hitting a frequency that cracks a glass -- but nothing else.

Sadly, he died, a penniless drunk.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 13:20 | 1141683 tim73
tim73's picture

So when the nuclear armageddon did not materialize, you guys try the juice up your stories with "even low dosage is dangerous"-crap.

The maximum exposure level allowed for nuclear plant workers would increase the risk of cancers mere ONE PERCENT during their lifetime! After which they cannot work near radiation anymore. Those limits are already strict enough but don't let the facts to ruin a good story, right?

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 14:12 | 1141951 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

"So when the nuclear armageddon did not materialize"

It is materializing.  Go eat some sushi and check back in a couple of years.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 12:20 | 1141367 Dulcinea
Dulcinea's picture

But given that radiation continues to be released, what is the fix?

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 12:48 | 1141484 Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

The radiation will be around for 25000 years. The people, not so long.

It is possible to have safe nuclear power IF the people in charge want it. For example the Thorium reactor is far safer, more efficient, and cheaper than anything in use today. Thorium reactors can actually burn up radioactive waste and make it harmless. In the process producing millions of watts of power.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 13:10 | 1141628 umop episdn
umop episdn's picture

Plus, the stuff for the big war toys is harder to make with thorium. U-233 is easiest, but U-235 and plutonium take extra effort. I hope India can make it work (they are the only country I know of that is attempting thorium reactors).

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 15:43 | 1142387 Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

Canada is working on using thorium in their very safe CANDU reactor.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 20:57 | 1143587 destiny
destiny's picture

China is goind Thorium as well, read from a previous ZH article

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 12:14 | 1141348 InconvenientCou...
InconvenientCounterParty's picture

I read somewhere there were an estimated 1 million additional deaths worldwide post-Chernobyl.

Adding a single "0" to that looks reasonable. Any further f-ups could get us to "00".

I fear Japan is in a fight for the very survival of nation and culture. Their demographic trends sucked well before this tragic disaster. This event will only accelerate the endpoint.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 13:35 | 1141779 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

One extensive study of the Chernobyl event suggests that the worldwide increase in deaths from 1987 to 2004 as a result that catastrophe was about 824,000 and will continue to increase for several generations.

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment By Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, Alexey V. Nesterenko

result&resnum=10&ved=0CF8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=CS 137 degradation&f=false

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 12:19 | 1141370 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

I read somewhere, and have heard in several places, that certain elites speculate that the earth can only sustain 500-600 million people comfortably........by that I assume comfortably for them. But, with all the crap going on maybe we're headed for that number.......

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 13:27 | 1141721 Ruffcut
Ruffcut's picture

 Look up this georgia guidestones. It states to maintain 500 mill pop, and it might mean this, or it could mean that or one way or another.

(sorry GW, good post but can't help this and this and a few other disorders)

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 12:10 | 1141333 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

You had me at    "See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this."

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 12:10 | 1141330 vast-dom
vast-dom's picture

AS per military:

"Every exposure increases risk of cancer."

That is ALL one needs to know. Period.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 15:39 | 1142378 idle muesli
idle muesli's picture

The questions are whether this is really the case, and whether the increase in cancer risk is more than negligble.


Some scientists claim that higher levels of radiation can (within limits) activate repair processes and make people healthier.  This definitely is the case with some poisons.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 12:11 | 1141214 AN0NYM0US
AN0NYM0US's picture

GW this is one big and very entrenched business it would be interesting to see stats comparing Canada where there are waiting lists for CT scans and the US where you can get one at your local 7-11.  CT's,  especially the atomic ones have huge amounts of radition (hundreds of times a normal xray)






CT Scan Safety: What You Need to Know

and behind it all, Mr. Immelt's company


coincidence they're the same company behind Fuku

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!