Radiation Hormesis - Revision history

RichardWSmith: /* Discussion */ Added link.

2025-11-18T01:43:32Z

Discussion: Added link.

RichardWSmith: /* Radiation Regulation and Mars Exploration */ fixing formatting.

2025-11-18T01:40:27Z

Radiation Regulation and Mars Exploration: fixing formatting.

RichardWSmith: /* Radiation Regulation and Mars Exploration */ Added references.

2025-11-18T01:39:04Z

Radiation Regulation and Mars Exploration: Added references.

RichardWSmith: /* Discussion */

2025-11-18T01:31:31Z

Discussion

RichardWSmith: /* Samples of Research */ Added reference.

2025-11-18T01:18:35Z

Samples of Research: Added reference.

RichardWSmith: /* Discussion */ Added reference.

2025-11-18T01:13:21Z

Discussion: Added reference.

RichardWSmith: Added link.

2025-11-18T01:07:00Z

Added link.

RichardWSmith: /* Radiation Regulation and Mars Exploration */

2025-11-18T01:02:50Z

Radiation Regulation and Mars Exploration

RichardWSmith: /* Stimulating Repair Mechanisms */

2025-11-18T01:02:06Z

Stimulating Repair Mechanisms

RichardWSmith: Discussion of how overreaction to radiation danger causes real harm.

2025-11-18T00:35:07Z

Discussion of how overreaction to radiation danger causes real harm.

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 A threshold model was the most logical, but very early radiation safety standards assumed the wildly conservative Linear No Threshold model, assuming that the safety standards would be relaxed as more research came in.
-Linear No Threshold (LNT) says that there is NO level of radiation which is safe.  Given that we are bathed in radiation all the time, from cosmic rays, ground radiation, and radiation from inside our bodies, the LNT is very suspect.  Surely if our radiation dose was equal to, or lower than, the normal background radiation, there would be no harm to our health?
+Linear No Threshold (LNT) says that there is NO level of radiation which is safe.  Given that we are bathed in radiation all the time, from [[Cosmic radiation|cosmic rays]], ground radiation, and radiation from inside our bodies, the LNT is very suspect.  Surely if our radiation dose was equal to, or lower than, the normal background radiation, there would be no harm to our health?
 Most scientists assumed that the Threshold Model would be correct.  Below some dose the radiation damage was trivial or non-existent, above the threshold dose, it would do harm.

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 In most countries, radiation safety standards are based on the Linear No Threshold model, which has been shown to be wildly incorrect.
-In the city of Ramsar Iran, natural radiation is 50 times that of most areas on Earth, and they show no higher levels of cancer or other forms of radiation disease.  Nor are the average lifespans lower than similar cities (with much lower levels of radiation) in other parts of Earth.<ref>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11769138/ | Very high background radiation areas of Ramsar, Iran: preliminary biological studies.</ref>
+In the city of Ramsar Iran, natural radiation is 50 times that of most areas on Earth, and they show no higher levels of cancer or other forms of radiation disease.  Nor are the average lifespans lower than similar cities (with much lower levels of radiation) in other parts of Earth.<ref>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11769138/ | Very high background radiation areas of Ramsar, Iran: preliminary biological studies.</ref><ref>https://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/ramsar-natural-radioactivity/ramsar.html</ref><ref>https://aerb.gov.in/images/PDF/image/34086353.pdf | Ramsar suggests that current regulations for radiation are too strict.</ref> <ref>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0531513104018369 | Natives of Ramsar had better response to high gamma ray doses</ref> <ref>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228757260_Are_the_Inhabitants_of_High_Background_Radiation_Areas_of_Ramsar_More_Radioresistant_Scope_of_the_Problem_and_the_Need_for_Future_Studies</ref> <ref>https://www.ntanet.net/the-naturally-occurring-high-radiation-levels-of-ramsar-iran/</ref>
 If the radiation dosage required for astronauts was at the level of Ramsar, far lighter and less expensive radiation protection would be needed.

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 In most countries, radiation safety standards are based on the Linear No Threshold model, which has been shown to be wildly incorrect.
-In the city of Ramsar Iran, natural radiation is 50 times that of most areas on Earth, and they show no higher levels of cancer or other forms of radiation disease.  Nor are the average lifespans lower than similar cities (with much lower levels of radiation) in other parts of Earth.
+In the city of Ramsar Iran, natural radiation is 50 times that of most areas on Earth, and they show no higher levels of cancer or other forms of radiation disease.  Nor are the average lifespans lower than similar cities (with much lower levels of radiation) in other parts of Earth.<ref>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11769138/ | Very high background radiation areas of Ramsar, Iran: preliminary biological studies.</ref>
 If the radiation dosage required for astronauts was at the level of Ramsar, far lighter and less expensive radiation protection would be needed.

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:31, 18 November 2025
Line 21:		Line 21:

	Sadly, the regulatory regime in most countries, did not update radiation safety standards in light of this new evidence. <ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/08/17/2021-17475/linear-no-threshold-model-and-standards-for-protection-against-radiation</ref>		Sadly, the regulatory regime in most countries, did not update radiation safety standards in light of this new evidence. <ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/08/17/2021-17475/linear-no-threshold-model-and-standards-for-protection-against-radiation</ref>
		+
		+	Tho the preponderance of evidence suggests that very low levels of radiation are helpful, it is not easy to conduct these studies because the level at which radiation is beneficial is very close to the background radiation level. (So indications are hidden by the noise.) Since it is hard to lower the radiation level below normal background level, such studies are expensive and not performed on human subjects. Genetic testing has shown that while single strand breaks on DNA are easy to repair, double strand breaks are not. (Presumably, if the radiation is high enough to commonly cause double strand breaks, permanent cell damage is likely.)

	==Samples of Research==		==Samples of Research==

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:18, 18 November 2025
Line 26:		Line 26:

	ResearchGate - A message to Fukushima: Nothing to Fear But Fear Itself.<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301313856_A_message_to_Fukushima_Nothing_to_fear_but_fear_itself</ref>		ResearchGate - A message to Fukushima: Nothing to Fear But Fear Itself.<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301313856_A_message_to_Fukushima_Nothing_to_fear_but_fear_itself</ref>
		+
		+	Radiation Hormesis: Historical & Current Perspectives. <ref>https://tech.snmjournals.org/content/43/4/242</ref>

	==Speculation of Why Radiation is Helpful==		==Speculation of Why Radiation is Helpful==

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 However, as time passed, the evidence accumulated that at very low levels of radiation, there were positive health effects, and some low amount of radiation was helpful to human life.
-Sadly, the regulatory regime in most countries, did not update radiation safety standards in light of this new evidence.
+Sadly, the regulatory regime in most countries, did not update radiation safety standards in light of this new evidence. <ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/08/17/2021-17475/linear-no-threshold-model-and-standards-for-protection-against-radiation</ref>
 ==Samples of Research==

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 This youTube video nicely summarizes the radiation levels of Mars exploration and discusses safety concerns.
 See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzdLdNRaPKc&list=PL994EB042117A7F6D&index=66
 ==References==

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 ===Stimulating Repair Mechanisms===
 Stem cell therapy found that the stem cells injected into humans aged rapidly, but if irradiated, they lived longer.  The radiation triggered improvements in proliferation, mobility, and chondorgenic differentiation capacity, (which improved cell longevity).  This is thought to have been caused by stimulating repair mechanisms in these cells. <ref> https://www.cnl.ca/health-science-2/low-dose-radiation-research/#:~:text=There%20is%20growing%20evidence%20that,help%20protect%20people%20against%20diseases.</ref>
 ==References==

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 ==Samples of Research==
 Science Direct's study on radiation hormesis (volume 902, Dec 2023). <ref>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969723046557</ref>
 ==Speculation of Why Radiation is Helpful==