The Phoney Science at the Base of the Radiation Experiment in Fukushima

From Facebook.
Paul Langley

The adaptive response school of the Department of Energy announces the death of Muller 1927. http://www.jstor.org/pss/3581207

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3581207

http://www.jstor.org

LikeUnlike · · UnsubscribeSubscribe · Share · 11 hours ago

*

*

D’un Renard, Peter Havasi and 3 others like this.

*

o

Paul Langley http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.1667/0033-7587%282000%29153%5B0508%3ARCOBAT%5D2.0.CO%3B2

Relative Contribution of Bystander and Targeted Cell Killing to the Low-Dose Region of the Radiation

http://www.rrjournal.org

Article Citation: Colin B. Seymour and Carmel Mothersill (2000) Relative Contrib…ution of Bystander and Targeted Cell Killing to the Low-Dose Region of the Radiation Dose–Response Curve. Radiation Research: May 2000, Vol. 153, No. 5, pp. 508-511.See More

11 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 3 peopleLoading… ·

o

Paul Langley http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0027510796001182

ScienceDirect – Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis : Hypersensiti

http://www.sciencedirect.com

There is now little doubt of the existence of radioprotective mechanisms, or str…ess responses, that are upregulated in response to exposure to small doses of ionizing radiation and other DNA-damaging agents. Phenomenologically, there are two ways in which these induced mechanisms operate. First, a s…See More

11 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 3 peopleLoading… ·

o

Paul Langley “Addressing the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy in Adelaide, chair of the uranium company Toro Energy Erica Smith said the true cost of coal was not yet being paid for by the community. She also said that there was a strong argument that some radiation “was good for you” …..”

Adelaide Advertiser newspaper, August 13, 2011 page 7.

11 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 3 peopleLoading…

o

Paul Langley http://lowdose.energy.gov/science_highlights.aspx

Low Dose Radiation Research Program: Research Highlights – Using targeted irradiation to understand.

lowdose.energy.gov

These are highlights of research published by DOE Low Dose Radiation Research Program investigators.

11 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 3 peopleLoading… ·

o

Paul Langley Governments which accept the papers funded by the US DOE low dose radiation research program have place people at risk, Some papers written in reply and in defence of the LNT model do exist. Thus papers are few in comparison to the flood of DOE funded papers which have appeared since the first DOE funding, released in 1999. One such paper is can be dowloaded via

11 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 3 peopleLoading…

o

Paul Langley I am frustrated, angry, upset, aggressive and have not behaved very well at all. Even if the adaptive response model has some validity at extremely low doses< 0.1 Gray, it would be in a medical setting, not a public health setting. To extent this principle to exposures from radionuclides has no basis at all as far as I can see.

11 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading…

o

Paul Langley Informing of this "research" was the primary motivation for posting in this group.

11 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading…

o

Peter Havasi THANX PAUL FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTION, VERY INFORMATIVE STUFF!!! WELL DONE.

3 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 3 peopleLoading…

o

Brett Burnard Stokes I deplore the corruption of universities and science …

I welcome and applaud work for the truth and for the common good.

Thanks Paul for helping me to understand how these things happened.

Through such understanding, we will take effective action.

3 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading…

o

D'un Renard Thanks paul for such high grade sharing!

3 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading…

o

Paul Langley i dont know. This stuff is very deceptive. IF a level of dose exists which stimulates the cell, lies at 0.1 Gray or below, consists of low dose low let external x. IF. Yet, Sykes extends the concept to exposures of different types and higher doses. It is my opinion that when a government believes it, well the response to Fukushima is the result. I dont think the antinuke should ignore it. We should point out that the current situation in Japan is a gross misapplication of it. It is fundamentally a re deployment of the saem decpetion MF points out as being inherent in BEIR and the nuke vets point out as being inherent in ICRP. that is, the impact of internal emitters is ignored. These are not low let and are not low dose in any case. Sorry to get stroppy with you MF. Obviously Muller is the leg of the table adaptive response attempts to kick out. I dont have many skills. Even if the low low low soft dose puts a cells defenses on stand by mode, those defences are still overwhelmed in the usual way at the usual doses presented by contamianted land sea air water and food. DOE refuses to carry out internal emitter studies. This is the pointy end of my submission to us.

Paul Langley Muller 1927 possessed crude x ray machines and poort visual tools for observations. Muller's zero was a very crude zero. The DOE results depend upon x ray machines capable of extremely low minimum emission of X rays. The observational tools used today are extremely powerful with powers of magnification of very great orders. None the less, the main vector of harm radiation induces within cell is via Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) . Back when Sykes was willing to communicate with me, she described the work in a letter. At that time she was looking for the human genotype which was comparatively more vulnerable than others (there is always a bell curve in any population) Now, today, under the adaptive model, there are allegedly no vulnerable genotypes. Only beneficiaries. I asked her to consider variables. Given the primary vector of harm to the cell (ROS, which, apart from their role in the genesis of carcinogens in the cell, are capable of direct chromosome insult) The chief variant in oxgen present in the cell. Radiation damage in my view is dependent upon metabolic rate at the time of exposure . I believe. Pam didnt not introduce this variable into her experiments. It might sound ridiculous, but she didnt not make any of her mice "work" during exposures to low dose x rays. Putting mice in rodent wheels and making them run , exposing them and comparing results with mice exposed when at rest might seem eccentric, but metabolic rate is a variable worth testing. (Hersey reports Hiroshima doctors observing bomb victims dying or surviving on the bases of whether they were still in bed or working at the time the Hiroshima bomb went off , where both cohorts were at equi distance from hypocentre, with similar shielding factors. Alexander, 1957 reports hibernating european bats surviving lethal dose exposures for weeks until roused. The bats died only after eating. Advocates claim higher cosmic rays at altitude amoung residents who live at high altitudes give a health benefit. Although the cosmic background is higher at high altitude, the oxygen concentration at high altitude is lower. Sykes proposes a health benefit from frequent air travel. The converse is true, for aircraft have pressurised cabins. etc. Oxygen is the vector whereby the cell is damaged by low let x, gamma or cosmic. Low Let is incapable of direct chromosomal breakage until multiple hits occur at the same place on the same chromosome. While the LNT is no threshold, it is acknowledged that chromosome damage by direct insult by radiation tracks will not occur from a single impact unless the impact is a above a certain energy level. chromosomal damage from low let depends upon multiple hits at the same place within a time frame which precludes repair. Lastly the vulnerability to such hits varies according to the stage of dividion cycle the cell is at at the time. None of this is new. Lastly, there are thousands of possible processes which may result from radiation insult to cells. The effect and bystander effects reported by the adaptive response school are very few. Presumably they ignore the many other deletrious ones, and focus only on those they want to report. ie the NOx mediated mutant cell death mediated by by stander cells. The effect they propose is enhanced by application of low let soft and low dose x. Applied before a large exposure, they say it switches on the cellular mechanism. Applied after a large exposure they say extends the time during which bystander invoked mutant cell death. What is Sykes et al proposing? to giving the school kids in Fukushima a low dose whole body x ray before they go to school, and another one when they get? and the same at home time? Crazy girl, our Pam. However, as an adjuctive additional dose after a patient has recieved a high treatment dose in the context of cancer treatment the Sykes model has mert. I wish her well. By extending the idea to a whole, well population which does not suffer disease (and which is therefore not subject to the medical cost/benefit ethical consideration). she is proposing a medical treatment as an experiment without consent. In other words , she is our Joe Hamilton. Sorry Pam, this is my view. Stick the lab and informed consent Pam Sykes. Get the kids out of Fukushima.There are not your pet mice Pam.

44 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

o

Brett Burnard Stokes hey Paul, my view is that Sykes is a psychopath ♥

44 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

o

Paul Langley The people in the radiation affected areas of Japan must get plenty of rest, and must try to relax and meditate.

40 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

o

Paul Langley Ha Ha. Well, after she published Brett, she attended a hormesis seminar at Los Alamos. They believe what they percieve Brett. I would love to sit and argue with her. The setting she is now is psychopathological. She was a nice person. Once. Pam, come back over to the light side…….

34 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

o

Brett Burnard Stokes ‎"But we cannot evacuate Fukushima, it is our home"

"But we cannot evacuate Japan, it is our home"

"But we cannot evacuate Earth, it is our home"

34 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

o

Paul Langley Pam is calling for volunteers so she irradiate prostate glands with low dose x. Feeling lucky Brett?

32 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

o

Brett Burnard Stokes Paul, what an invitation …no thanks …

31 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

o

Paul Langley Anyway, the DOE Low Dose research contract Flinders Uni and Pam Sykes et al won at the beginning of the 21 st century was the one I believe. It is not surprising that it was won by a Uni located at the end of the earth, last stop before Antarcia. Had it been won by say, George Washington Uni USA, the results would have been accepted by academe there, but it would have confined to the parameters of the experiment design. The open university system in the USA would have scrutinised the results and would have cried blue murder as soon as the results were misapplied to settings of high let and higher doses. Which is what DOE does at research faciilities located at the ends of the earth. Meanwhile, in the realm of the common people, the world I live in, you have doe zombies like Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones promoting the low end stuff such the purported health benefits of Ramsar Iran and that coastal resort in Brazil which has radium sands on the beach. Others have looked at the claims of alleged cancer protection due to high radium /radon backgrounds there and have the opposite is true. Cancer is up in proportion to the radium/radon load. End of my story about the DOE low dose program. Thanks for understanding.

10 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

o

Paul Langley Teller in response to Pauling "I see a (genetic) benefit" (from H bomb testing) . DOE did not desgin the Sykes experiment from the view point of neutral science. It desgined it from an ideological perspective. This is not science in its application, it is a spook op.

2 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

*

Write a comment…

#

D'un Renard

Enfin une bonne nouvelle!

L'Australie n'a pas besoin de l'énergie nucléaire (Premier ministre)

french.news.cn

CANBERRA, 14 mars (Xinhua) — Le Premier ministre australienne, Mme Julia Gillard a déclaré lundi que l'Australie n'avait pas besoin de l'énergie nucléaire.

LikeUnlike · · UnsubscribeSubscribe · Share · 4 hours ago

*

*

2 people like this.

*

o

o

Brett Burnard Stokes ‎"double talk politician" … yes of course, that is the way of the world … never mind the double talk and the politics …

somehow truth and common good will prevail, on a global scale ♥

3 hours ago · LikeUnlike

o

Paul Langley Neither Rudd nor Abbott have answered my question re "Australian Obligated Plutonium" in Japan Brett.

41 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

o

Paul Langley A spook op conducted in the Uranium capital of the Southern Hemisphere. "Radiation is good for you" Toros Energy, 2 weeks ago. The Japanese people are expendable in this view, as are we all. Japan's response to the reactor emissions is prototypical for all such future events. According to the new paradig

LikeUnlike · · Share · Delete

*
*
*
o
Paul Langley The children in hot spots of radiation affected areas of Japan need to be moved.
a few seconds ago · Like

THE CASE OF THE NUCLEAR VETERANS STANDS. THE LNT MODEL STANDS. NUCLEAR INDUSTRY IS IN ITS LAST 3 DECADES.

2 Responses to “The Phoney Science at the Base of the Radiation Experiment in Fukushima”

  1. Reference lists for exposing radiation hormesis and quack radiation “science” « nuclear-news Says:

    […] https://nuclearhistory.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/the-phoney-science-at-the-base-of-the-radiation-exper… […]

  2. Reference list on ‘radiation hormesis’ and ‘adaptive radiation’ « nuclear-news.info Says:

    […] https://nuclearhistory.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/the-phoney-science-at-the-base-of-the-radiation-exper… […]

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: