Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik pce Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.

About influence from radiation.

________________________________________________________________

From nuclear bombs to knowledge and dogma

Long before we knew anything about radioactivity and radiation, energetic “health-enthusiasts” visited baths, which later turned out to be with high concentrations of radon.
Of course, the impact is not known.

Around 1915 radioactive water became the fashion as a cure against all sorts of diseases.

The pendulum swung the other way when some wealthy enthusiasts overdosed and died a horrible death.

After the nuclear bomb attacks in Japan, we began to get some factual knowledge about the effects of ionizing (radioactive) radiation.
Quickly the following was identified:
– – – Lethal dose is about 3000 mSv
– – – The death proces could be very long and painful.
– – – The healing of burns was strongly inhibited.
– – – Some children, who had been irradiated during pregnancy, showed
– – – serious birth defects.

Before long flourished an understandable fear of everything just containing the word “nuclear” or “radiation”.

Since we did not have sufficient knowledge about the effects of lower doses of ionizing radiation, it was natural to assume that no matter how little, then it is harmful.
So you were hopefully on the safe side.

Harm was thus calculated from the LNT hypothesis.

Or more precisely: We had gained reasonable good information on the adverse effects of large doses and drew a straight line between this and the zero point, which of course was no impact – no damage.
This assumption makes it possible to “calculate” the number of future deaths in greater populations, who have been exposed to low load of radiation.
At times these “calculations” gave completely absurd results.

A humorous, but strictly factual, assessment is  found here:

This time the pendulum came so far out that any talk of anything else was silenced.

BUT

As time went on, we got new information. However, it was largely ignored:

• Against all expectations, it turned out that children born to parents who had been exposed to even very strong irradiation had no more birth defects than the normal population.
• Populations who for generations had lived in areas with high natural radiation, had no more cases of cancer.
  It gave rise to the term “The Rasmar Paradox”.
• In 2006 and later in 2015 we can se how the animals who had taken over the forbidden zone at Chernobyl, live successfully and even had fewer cases of cancer than elsewhere.

It is found that there is a NEGATIVE correlation between radon and cancer in the United States.

This, and much more, shows that moderate exposure to ionizing radiation is not harmful. Probably  it acts like a vaccination against cancer.

AND NOW

When the survivors of the nuclear bomb attacks begin to grow old, more information came to light.

• Thus, it was discovered that people who had been exposed to 500 mSv or less, had no shorter life span than normal population.
  (500 mSv will cause minor symptoms of acute radiation sickness and is more than 100 times than what one would normally accept.)
• Individuals who barely survived the acute radiation sickness, on the other hand, had an average life span, which was three years less than the general population.
  Reference and a little more: See here.
• It became easy to see that the original asumption (LNT) was a wild goose chase.

Regardless of this, the doomsayers continues to explain that we need to keep us far from everything with nuclear:

• The accident at the Chernobyl was, unjustifiably, touted to show that all nuclear power is dangerous.
  (Strictly it may be argued that this accident showed that even a very serious accident at a completely irresponsible reactor did not cause the often trumpeted enormous damage.)



• After the tsunami and the accident at Fukushima the politicians went into panic and set unrealistically low limits for permissible radiation.
  So low that we soon have to believe that the Danish island Bornholm should be evacuated and the residents of Helinski and other sites have long overdue died.
• Especially in Germany it is preferred to have pollution and high cost. Just to get rid of nuclear power.

One wonders, of course: Why can this unfounded fear close of for a logic assessment?
I dare to think that some of the answer can be found below:

• The business model for the “green organizations” is to appear as those who protect us from danger.
  If a real danger can not be found, then radiation and nuclear power will be seen as an obvious candidate.
  This is easily seen if the attentive reader tries to study sites, especially from Greenpeace.
• The old scaremongering has been waged for so long, so intensely and so skillfully that almost all journalists and politicians can not imagine anything else.
  Or they do not dare say anything else.
• At many universities it unfortunately applies that you should ‘just’ write something about something and get it published.
  Or give room for another at the next ’round of sackings’.
  It is obviously unwise to ‘pee against the wind’.
  So better continue to make something out of nothing.
• Unfortunately the same applies for many journalists.
• It will be an economic disaster for Greenpeace and others if they should “go back” and recognize that some of what they have been fighting against, anyway, is not dangerous.
• Of course it will be a political death sentence for a politician if he can be accused of exposing people to danger.
  Better to howl with the wolves you are among.

But no matter what, so in “the West”, we continue to run out of an expensive astray.