Report: Repeated Low Doses of Radiation Can Cause More Damage than High Doses

George Washington's picture

Can Low Doses of Radiation Cause More Damage than High Doses?

The New York Times’ Matthew Wald reports today:

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists[’] May-June issue carries seven articles and an editorial on the subject of low-dose radiation, a problem that has thus far defied scientific consensus but has assumed renewed importance since the meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi reactors in Japan in March 2011.



This month a guest editor, Jan Beyea [who received a PhD in nuclear physics from Columbia and has served on a number of committees at the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science] and worked on epidemiological studies at Three Mile Island, takes a hard look at the power industry.


The bulletin’s Web site is generally subscription-only, but this issue can be read at no charge.


Dr. Beyea challenges a concept adopted by American safety regulators about small doses of radiation. The prevailing theory is that the relationship between dose and effect is linear – that is, that if a big dose is bad for you, half that dose is half that bad, and a quarter of that dose is one-quarter as bad, and a millionth of that dose is one-millionth as bad, with no level being harmless.


The idea is known as the “linear no-threshold hypothesis,’’ and while most scientists say there is no way to measure its validity at the lower end, applying it constitutes a conservative approach to public safety.


Some radiation professionals disagree, arguing that there is no reason to protect against supposed effects that cannot be measured. But Dr. Beyea contends that small doses could actually be disproportionately worse.


Radiation experts have formed a consensus that if a given dose of radiation delivered over a short period poses a given hazard, that hazard will be smaller if the dose is spread out. To use an imprecise analogy, if swallowing an entire bottle of aspirin at one sitting could kill you, consuming it over a few days might merely make you sick.


In radiation studies, this is called a dose rate effectiveness factor. Generally, a spread-out dose is judged to be half as harmful as a dose given all at once.




Dr. Beyea, however, proposes that doses spread out over time might be more dangerous than doses given all at once. He suggests two reasons: first, some effects may result from genetic damage that manifests itself only after several generations of cells have been exposed, and, second, a “bystander effect,” in which a cell absorbs radiation and seems unhurt but communicates damage to a neighboring cell, which can lead to cancer.


One problem in the radiation field is that little of the data on hand addresses the problem of protracted exposure. Most of the health data used to estimate the health effects of radiation exposure comes from survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings of 1945. That was mostly a one-time exposure.


Scientists who say that this data leads to the underestimation of radiation risks cite another problem: it does not include some people who died from radiation exposure immediately after the bombings. The notion here is that the people studied in ensuing decades to learn about the dose effect may have been stronger and healthier, which could have played a role in their survival.


Still, the idea that the bomb survivor data is biased, or that stretched-out doses are more dangerous than instant ones, is a minority position among radiation scientists.

Dr. Beyea writes:

Three recent epidemiologic studies suggest that the risk from protracted exposure is no lower, and in fact may be higher, than from single exposures.




Conventional wisdom was upset in 2005, when an international study, which focused on a large population of exposed nuclear workers, presented results that shocked the radiation protection community—and foreshadowed a sequence of research results over the following years.




It all started when epidemiologist Elaine Cardis and 46 colleagues surveyed some 400,000 nuclear workers from 15 countries in North America, Europe, and Asia—workers who had experienced chronic exposures, with doses measured on radiation badges (Cardis et al., 2005).



This study revealed a higher incidence for protracted exposure than found in the atomic-bomb data, representing a dramatic contradiction to expectations based on expert opinion.




A second major occupational study appeared a few years later, delivering another blow to the theory that protracted doses were not so bad. This 2009 report looked at 175,000 radiation workers in the United Kingdom ….

After the UK update was published, scientists combined results from 12 post-2002 occupational studies, including the two mentioned above, concluding that protracted radiation was 20 percent more effective in increasing cancer rates than acute exposures (Jacob et al., 2009). The study’s authors saw this result as a challenge to the cancer-risk values currently assumed for occupational radiation exposures. That is, they wrote that the radiation risk values used for workers should be increased over the atomic-bomb-derived values, not lowered by a factor of two or more.




In 2007, one study—the first of its size—looked at low-dose radiation risk in a large, chronically exposed civilian population; among the epidemiological community, this data set is known as the “Techa River cohort.” From 1949 to 1956 in the Soviet Union, while the Mayak weapons complex dumped some 76 million cubic meters of radioactive waste water into the river, approximately 30,000 of the off-site population—from some 40 villages along the river—were exposed to chronic releases of radiation; residual contamination on riverbanks still produced doses for years after 1956.




Here was a study of citizens exposed to radiation much like that which would be experienced following a reactor accident. About 17,000 members of the cohort have been studied in an international effort (Krestinina et al., 2007), largely funded by the US Energy Department; and to many in the department, this study was meant to definitively prove that protracted exposures were low in risk. The results were unexpected. The slope of the LNT fit turned out to be higher than predicted by the atomic-bomb data, providing additional evidence that protracted exposure does not reduce risk.




In a 2012 study on atomic-bomb survivor mortality data (Ozasa et al., 2012), low-dose analysis revealed unexpectedly strong evidence for the applicability of the supralinear theory. From 1950 to 2003, more than 80,000 people studied revealed high risks per unit dose in the low-dose range, from 0.01 to 0.1 Sv.

We pointed out last year:

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists reported that one of the best-known scientists of the 20th century – Dr. John Gofman – also believed that chronic low level radiation is more dangerous than acute exposure to high doses. Gofman was a doctor of nuclear and physical chemistry and a medical doctor who worked on the Manhattan Project, co-discovered uranium-232 and -233 and other radioactive isotopes and proved their fissionability, helped discover how to extract plutonium, led the team that discovered and characterized lipoproteins in the causation of heart disease, served as a Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California Berkeley, served as Associate Director of the Livermore National Laboratory, was asked by the Atomic Energy Commission to undertake a series of long range studies on potential dangers that might arise from the “peaceful uses of the atom”, and wrote four scholarly books on radiation health effects.

Other experts have made the same claim:

Even low level radiation can cause big problems. Columbia provides an illustration:


sec8pag28 Report: Low Doses of Radiation Can Cause More Damage than High Doses


Radiation can sicken or kill us by directly damaging cells:


sec8pag5 Report: Low Doses of Radiation Can Cause More Damage than High Doses


Or indirectly … by producing free radicals:


sec8pag6 Report: Low Doses of Radiation Can Cause More Damage than High Doses




Scientists from the Institute of Nuclear Science claim in the Archive of oncology:

Chronic exposure to low-dose radiation doses could be much more harmful than high, short-term doses because of lipid peroxidation initiated by free radicals.



Peroxidation of cell membranes increases with decreasing dose rate (Petkau effect).

(See this for more on the Petkau effect.)

Low Doses Can Cause Big Problems

Whether or not low doses of radiation are more dangerous than high doses, one thing is clear: repeated exposure to low doses of radiation can cause cancer.

Yet governments worldwide are raising acceptable radiation levels based upon politics.

Indeed, the Department of Energy is trying to replace the widely-accepted model of the dangers of low dose radiation based on voodoo science. Specifically, DOE’s Lawrence Berkeley Labs recently used a mutant line of human cells in a petri dish which was able to repair damage from low doses of radiation, and extrapolated to the unsupported conclusion that everyone is immune to low doses of radiation:


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
printmoremoney's picture

Humans reptilian brain is pathological. When the atom was split, we put the end line on this foray into evolution. Monkey brains and fission don't mix. Nobody gets out alive anyway, but really, folks, destroying the planet for thousands of years to come just to create a few decades of electricity for cell phones and refrigerators? Well, the bonus is nuclear weapons and the MAD "peace" we have so enjoyed. Stupid is and stupid does.

Don't take my word for it. I have shit for brains, just like you.

This 6 minutes says it all.

Helen Calidcott takes a few minutes to layout what Fukushima has unlocked.

And take a minute to reflect on what you think Love is, and do it now, before your cancer kicks in. 


GMadScientist's picture

George, do you see the bright ball of light in the sky?

gaoptimize's picture

Need to tell the wife to stop eating a bannana before bed or stay on her side.

Overdrawn's picture

During the Soviet era, the people of Semipalatinsk in Kazakhstan were used as human guinea pigs in the testing of 212 nuclear weapons. Today the residents believe they are living with the consequences: one in 20 children is born with defects.

supermaxedout's picture

highly Uranium Contaminated ground water = drinking water in areas with intensive agriculture.

Yes boys, a few weeks ago I saw a documentary on German TV showing that in phosphate fertilzers is always a high content of uranium. It became public due to mysteriously high uranium level in the drinking water of an agricultural village in former East Germany. The reason for the contamination was found out. In the time during the DDR (East Germany) there was excessive use of fertilizer including phosphate. It was stored centrally for the region close by to this village as a giant heap. Just in the open. Farms picked up their share of the material at this side. Since this went on for several decades the rain was able to wash out materials which went then underground into the water. The Uranium content of the stored phosphate was the orign of the uran contamination.

Because of this the population is drinking only bottled water now. The local waterworks were interviewed if there is no technology how to remove the uranium from the drinking water before its piped to the househollds. The technicans stated its well possible, the installation is not cheap but not out of reach. Not to much expensive. But the problem is, that the Uranium which would be recovered by their "filters" would be affected by the Atom laws in Germany. Its highly dangerous material and needs to be stored safely just like material from an atom power plant. In underground vaults under high security. And since such vaults do no exists till now, they are not allowed to filter the uranium out of the water. There is simple no way how to store it.

But the kicker is. according to the documentary.  All phosphate fertilzer contain relative high uranium levels, except the fertilizer produced in Israel derived from the ground around the "Deth Sea". The Israelis use a simple method which is public knowledge among experts to remove the uranium from the fertilizer.  In other words the fertilizer is the basic material for Israels atomic bombs and power plants. This method is very effetive and cheap, so that the biggest producer of phosphate the country of Morocco intends to filter out the uranium and to sell it separately. It would be commercialy attractive compared to traditional uranium mining. Its much cheaper and its available in enoumous quantities.  

Would be a good idea to do it, thus not adding more uranium to the gound waters all over the world which is now the common practice when using phosphate fertilizer.

No doubt mankind is slowly killing itself (or fast) by this uranium stuff.   By the way its also in fertilzer for the grass green in your foregarden. As a safety measure its better not to let have children ontact with this material.  Its no were written on the box that it contains uranium but its definetly there in varied concentrations, except its a fertilizer made in Israel.


George Washington's picture

Dr. Beyea debunks the hormesis b.s.:

"Demonstration of a quasi-threshold would be unlikely to assuage those who abhor radiation-producing technology on existential grounds, but it might eventually affect regulations and overall opinion. The radiation hormesis theory—that some radiation is beneficial—would provide more comfort, if it could be demonstrated. The best evidence for this concept in humans can be found in national data on home radon measurements and lung cancer rates at the county level. However, the reliance on cancer data aggregated to the county level has been roundly criticized by epidemiologists (Lubin, 2002). Results from more sophisticated epidemiologic studies of the same association do show the expected dose response when individual cancers are matched to dose (Darby et al., 2005; Krewski et al., 2006).

Though it still is a pet topic of enterprising journalists, the radiation hormesis theory is no longer of much interest to researchers. The BEIR VII report, published in 2006, discounted the concept; the French Academy of Sciences took it more seriously, while discounting other evidence that suggests the response might be supralinear at low doses.

Given the increase in radiation from medical diagnostics and the interest in protracted exposure, the possible existence of a threshold or hormetic effect for public policy appears to be a moot issue for developed countries when it comes to future exposures. Even if the level of medical diagnostic exposures does not increase in the future, over the course of 40 years most people in developed countries will receive an average of 0.1 Sv from medical procedures, alone. With this in mind as a dose starting point for millions of people, it is fair to say that any exposure to radioactive elements from a nuclear accident or a dirty bomb would definitely contribute to their delayed cancer risk."

Fish Gone Bad's picture

The old adage, "Things that don't kill you will make you stronger." was never true.  Things that don't kill you may very well cripple you so that you have to live in a wheelchair and shit out your side into a pouch for the rest of your miserable life.

Fish Gone Bad

AnAnonymous's picture

This old adage is not even that old considered how old adages are usually old.

It was produced by a thinker thriving on pseudo debating brought in by US citizenism, Nietschze, second half of nineteen century.

Nothing like a humanity age long old adage as US citizen who have hijacked humanity through their human rights thingy foolish association would like to be.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

AnAnonymous said:

It was produced by a thinker thriving on pseudo debating brought in by US citizenism, Nietschze, second half of nineteen century.

Just when I thought the absurdity of your Chinese citizenism alternate history streams had peaked, you take it to new heights.

The history rewriting, time traveling algebraic coconut milk of Chinese citizenism crackpottery flows like a raging river of Chinese citizenism pollution overflowing with the accumulated roadside droppings of countless Chinese citizenism citizens washed into it by the monsoon rains of Chinese citizenism propagandistic tomfoolery.

Shameful to all observers, but not to Chinese citizenism citizens as they avoid self indiction at all costs.


AnAnonymous's picture


Lets get this straight. Refering to chinese citizenism is not alternate history while placing back a philosopher in the main thought framework of his own times is.

Expect no other peak but when you decide it to be. After all, it is your fantasy.

GMadScientist's picture

Cut 'An' some was this gig or Foxconn and he lost an uncle to the production of "numba-won" iPad.

Have a heart!

AnAnonymous's picture

The chinese fantasy.

Alternate history much?

Koevoet's picture

No surprise, considering the source. But this contradicts a large body of information on low dose radiation showing that low dose exposures are harmless and maybe beneficial.

For one of many examples:

Google "radiation hormesis" for a lot more.

GMadScientist's picture

Sampling a homogenous set of Taiwanese? Grow a fucking brain.

That's not science; that's Santeria.

I always suspected the TMNT were a plot to convince kids that toxic waste was cool.

rwe2late's picture


1 do not believe you are "refuting" the studies referred to by GW by being smugly dismissive of GW.

2 No doubt the studies mentioned in the article do "contradict information" about "low" doses of radiation.

But what exact risk should be defined as "low"?

What is acceptably low is typically not a scientific question, but a "political" one often biased by greed or hubris as many examples from tobacco to marijuana demonstrate. 

Nor are "risks" posed typically one-dimensional. The risks of "terrorists" may be overmatched by the risks of a police state. The risk of my smoking to me may be outmatched by sidestream effects on my children. The risk from exposure to one chemical may be compounded by the potpourri of chemicals in our environment.

The  acceptable risk level of radiation exposure may be inter-related to the "necessity" for repeated airport and dental scans, or use of depleted uranium weapons. Although the immediate risks to humans may be politically "low", the effects on other life and the environment may not be so minimal.

I believe most here at ZH prefer a full-blooded account of what should be politically acceptable risk. And yes, that often entails questioning the conventional "large bodies of information".

hardcleareye's picture

Been in ZH for  a year and 27 weeks and this is your second comment???  Hmmm  are you a bot?

BiggerInJapan's picture

fucking troll I hope you find many low level radiation in your life!

Decolat's picture

Yes, cancer usually requires many damaged DNA points in a cell's genetic code, accumulated over a given period of time. I just finished a cell biology class.

Many of my aunts and uncles died of cancer from being downwinders (southern Utah) from the nuke tests in Nevada, in the 50's. They even went down to watch the tests from close range mountain tops. No one warned them about the danger. They developed cancer years and decades later. NOBODY IS WARNING US TODAY ABOUT THE DANGER WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW! Fukushima is a huge threat, but maybe not nearly as huge as the thousands of modern, exotic chemicals our industrial society has released into the environment, that our evolution has never dealt with before and has developed zero safeguards against. In our food, in the air, in the stain resistant carpet, who knows...

But cigarette smoke is by far the (proven) worst cancer causer of all. 

TheMerryPrankster's picture

there are a host of chemicals and other sources that cause more cancer than cigarette smoke.

The sun for instance causes more skin cancer than cigarettes cause lung cancer.

I've had 2 friends die of skin cancer, 2 relatives die of breast cancer and none of these individuals smoked or lived with anyone who smoked.

As Joe Jackson noted,everything gives you cancer - there's no cure, there's no answer.

hardcleareye's picture

I have always found it amazing how some chain smokers and drinkers live as long as they do, I can think of two family members that have been serious heavy drinkers and smokers all their lives and are now pushing 90 and still alive...  of course they look like walking skeletons and their skin tone is gross and you can smell them before they walk into a room (and it has nothing to do with personal hygiene).

I have heard it referred to as the deep end of the gene pool.....  someone should do a study on these people and find out what their bodies did to successfully deal with the damage they inflected on themselves.

General Decline's picture

I'm sure the elite has already done that and are keeping the results to themselves.

Are you kidding's picture

Can't have "improving" of the human geome...they do everything in their power to have the worst of society breed.  It would be "racist" because we WOULD find out that race matters.


Oh...and most importantly...the drug companies wouldn't make any money.

anonnn's picture

"... Dr. Abram Petkau. Dr. Petkau [[ re Health Physics  March of 1972, a scientist at Canadian Atomic Energy Labs]]  had been examining the basic processes whereby chemicals diffuse through cell membranes. In the course of these studies, he had occasion to expose the membranes surrounded by water to a powerful X-ray machine, and observed that they would usually break after absorbing the relatively large dose of 3500 rads, the equivalent of some 35,000 years of normal background radiation."

 [[A rad is generally equal to a rem , except for neutrons and heavy particles like alpha particles which are very harmful internally, so rem was established to account for varied internal locations in a body.  . One rem = 0.01 Sievert.]]


"...[[But then ]] Dr. Petkau did something that no one else had tried before. He added a small amount of radioactive sodium salt to the water, such as occurs from fallout or reactor releases to a river, and measured the total absorbed dose before the membrane broke due to the low-level protracted radiation. ...

            To his amazement, he found that instead of requiring a dose of 3500 rads, the membrane ruptured at an absorbed dose of three-quarters of one rad, ... ."


From Dr. Ernest Sternglass, who first uncovered radioactive "fallout" from nuke testing in the atmosphere [in upstate NY, after a rainstorm].

Winston Smith 2009's picture

That's an old report and I'd have to examine the peer reviews, but lets analyze the process he used.  He introduced a radioactive isotope of an element that the body and its cells readily absorb and retain.  OF COURSE that's going to internally irradiate cells and greatly weaken them just as iodine-131 collects in the thyroid gland,  irradiates it and destroys it.  But that's not what's being discussed in the article here and is not something you will be routinely exposed to.  The article here is about semi-routine external small doses of radiation and I say that it's being overblown considering the larger amounts of natural radiation we are regularly exposed to.

If you want to worry about something, worry about the radon progeny that are heavily zapping your lung cells as you read this.

hardcleareye's picture

WS if you are going to make a statements like " being overblown considering the larger amounts of natural radiation" and "worry about the radon progeny.." then give a link, citation and explanation to support your statement!



Goldilocks's picture

"one thing is clear: repeated exposure to" "experts" "can cause cancer."

palmereldritch's picture

There is also the potential two-fold impact of low radiation weakening immune system response to cancer causing viruses made more potent and malignant by that same radiation:

"Cancer is caused by a number of things. The biggest causes are chronic stealth infections (microorganisms), chemicals, radiation and strong electromagnetic fields. Microorganisms causing cancer include adenoviruses, herpes viruses, hepadenoviruses, and papovaviruses which includes the now famous SV40 virus. The notorious and now famous SV 40 was found as a contaminant in the polio vaccines in the 60s and 70s. SV 40 is the cause of AIDS in monkeys and brain cancers in humans."

Here's a wild one:

Debt-Is-Not-Money's picture

Everyone should read:

"Dr. Mary's Monkey" (Edward T. Haslam) and

"Me and Lee" (Judyth Vary Baker)

One item states that the worst state for receiving SV40 contaminated Salk vaccine was Massachusetts (where I got my shot in the mid '50's). It is pointed out that SV40 acts like a 'time bomb' in that 30-40 years can pass with no effect then a trigger (radiation, asbestos exposure etc.) sets it off resulting in a cancer. Also there were 100 million doses of KNOWN SV40 contaminated vaccine that "our" government intentionally dispensed!

Excellent comments Palmer!

palmereldritch's picture

I'm currently about two thirds the way through Judith Vary Baker's book, "Me and Lee" after reading "Dr. Mary's Monkey". Both are amazing but the Baker one is a fantastic story that potentially clears much of the murky fog surrounding Oswald and the special place New Orleans played in the opposition to Castro also being the eventual base of logistics for the JFK assassination as Garrison maintained.  For any student of the JFK murder mystery or just compelling historical insight into understanding early bio-weapon research, both books are must reads.  I whole heartedly agree...highly recommended.  Cheers Debt-Is-Not-Money!

Winston Smith 2009's picture

As I've shown above, for most people, the natural, unavoidable sources of radiation far outweigh the manmade ones.  So, while it's wise to avoid an excessive number of medically related exposures to ionizing radiation if possible, it should be put in perspective.

Winston Smith 2009's picture

The most prevalent radiation the average person receives is due to the natural Potassium-40 in their bodies (200,000 disintegrations per minute producing mostly betas and some gammas - that's for a 150 pound person), the radon progeny they inhale daily, in many areas of the country in large quantities (resulting in highly ionizing alpha radiation within the lungs, the second leading cause of lung cancer in the US), and the cosmic radiation that's twice as great for someone who lives at 5000 feet ASL than for someone at sea level.

The figures below are average figures and would be much higher for someone living in a high radon area, which is very many of us (from both ground and radon sources). Check the map at the link below.  Remember that this is continuous, low level, 24/7/365 irradiation:

Radon 200 millirem/yr

Body 40 millrem/yr

Cosmic 31 millirem/yr

Ground 28 millirem/yr

Consumer products: 11 millirem/yr

Using natural gas in the home: 9 millirem/year (from radon)

Total - 319 millirem/yr of unavoidable exposure

Chest X-ray 4 - 10 millirem

Dental X-ray (panoramic) – 1 millirem

US radon hazard zone map:

George Carlin's Hippy-Dippy Weatherman said, "Radar shows a line of thunderstorms approaching from the north... the radar also shows a squadron of Russian ICBMs, so I wouldn't sweat the thunderstorms."

Stop sweating the thunderstorms.

Manthong's picture

Tonight's forecast, DARK.. followed by scattered light in the morning.

AM-FM is next to the Firesigns in my vinyl collection.

Centurion9.41's picture

Georgie, maybe if YOU read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" then you would understand why your pieces are receiving such fragrant affections.

At least The Mad Hedge Fund Trader had enough sense to stop.


LongSoupLine's picture



Shit!...Ann Coulter said radiation was good for me!!  That bitch replaced my vitamins and had me sucking on smoke detectors for a year now.

curly's picture

GW's posts are entertaining if nothing else, have to check the URL to make sure I'm not on the Onion or other satire site, NYT "authoritative" references included, or maybe especially.


Careless Whisper's picture

@ 3;19 "radiation is healthy". who knew? where can i get some of that vitamin radiation?


Stuck on Zero's picture

Funny. People who live in the mountains live longer than people who live at sea level.  People who are exposed to greater amounts of Radon in their homes live longer.  Hormesis.  Look it up.  Epidemiological studies are worthless and always have been.  In setting standards for radiation exposure thousands of these fool researchers argued for over twenty years.  What was the argument?  Whether two workers at Hanford had died of cancer due to workplace exposure to radiation or just hadn't smoked too much.  Here are the rules to follow:

1) Eat lots of veggies and take Turmeric.

2) Avoid the stress of bogus "fear studies."

3) Don't smoke or drink to excess.

4) Avoid high specific doses of radiation.

5) Avoid the 1-2 punch of cemical and radiation exposure.

That should take care of your cancer worries.

Gully Foyle's picture

Stuck on Zero

And maybe bullshit.

No matter what the fuck anyone does you are still help prisoner to your genetic code.

The best way to discover just what you may be vulnerable too is by examining the family tree.

But no, people choose to do everything but face reality.

Spend the money and get a DNA test.

The Alarmist's picture

"Funny. People who live in the mountains live longer than people who live at sea level.

Do they really, or do they simply age faster due to cell damage from cosmic rays?

Debt-Is-Not-Money's picture


That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger!

Friedrich Nietzsche

Centurion9.41's picture

I think you forget, the field of finance/trading is filled with folks who make the exact same type of faulty analysis, only they uses faulty economic/social/market data.

It's not called the Dismal Science for nothing.

One World Mafia's picture

So they are really comparing a high dose in a short time to small doses over long time.  Fukushima is giving us higher doses over a long time.

New_Meat's picture

so a bullet to your head is less lethal than a scratch on your arm ??? wtf???? - Ned

Gully Foyle's picture


That really does depend on many factors.

May 2 1957

Mob figure Frank Costello is shot in the head by Vincent "the Chin" Gigante. Instead of killing him, the bullet circumnavigates between his skin and cranium, exiting through the original wound. Costello retires from the Mafia soon after.

Worldwide, more than 55 000 people die of rabies every year.

Rabies is a zoonotic disease (a disease that is transmitted to humans from animals) that is caused by a virus. The disease infects domestic and wild animals, and is spread to people through close contact with infected saliva via bites or scratches.

AnAnonymous's picture

so a bullet to your head is less lethal than a scratch on your arm ??? wtf???? - Ned

Lethal as lethal can be.

Wonderful, isnt it?

The beauty of analogy logics as developed by US citizens.

Now I'd like to discuss various deaths and their associated lethal relativity, or how a dead man can be deader than another dead man.

Entry price:$150.

US citizen debate style guaranteed. No refund.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

AnAnonymous said:

Now I'd like to discuss various deaths and their associated lethal relativity, or how a dead man can be deader than another dead man.

Entry price:$150.

US citizen debate style guaranteed. No refund.

Typical Chinese citizenism make money fast get rich quick scheme.

No lucky numbers here, except number of dollars collected by Chinese citizenism fraud game.

Chinese citizenism knows no shameful depth that it cannot sink below.


AnAnonymous's picture

Ah, made me laugh.

The ascent of the chinese merchant tradition (and the lucky numbers stuff) is a by product of US citizenism spreading.

Before that, there was another dominant tradition in China that mocked those superstitions.

But hey, it must be great because it is brought by US citizenism so...