Uranium in false teeth unhealthy?

In this article, Cecil says:

I’m afraid I must contest this. It was not until 1958 that low amounts of ionizing radiation were considered dangerous. 1958 was the year that the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) decreed, quite without any scientific evidence, that radiation creates adverse effects in humans according to a Linear, No Threshold (LNT) model.

The LNT model states:

  1. The effects of low doses of ionizing radiation can be estimated by linear extrapolation from effects observed by linear extrapolation from effects observed by high doses.
  2. There is not any safe dose because even very low doses of ionizing radiation produce some biological effect.

In 1959 the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) adopted the LNT theory.

Prior to this UN action, and indeed for the last 60 years before it, people had been voluntarily exposing themselves to low levels of ionizing radiation, because studies have always shown there to be healthful effects in doing so. Even today, anyone who cares to find the studies will see that the LNT model is bogus.

One such study was done by D. Bhattarcharjee, and this was done in the same year as Cecil’s response, so I fail to see how he missed it.

Bhattarcharjee found that when he preirradiated Swiss mice for 5 days with gamma-rays at the rate of 1 cGy/day, thymic lymphoma was induced in 16% (8/50) of the animals. A high 2-Gy dose induced lymphomas in 46% (23/50) of the mice, whereas if the animals were preirradiated before exposure to the 2-Gy dose, only 16% of them developed the cancers; i.e., the preirradiation seemed to cancel the induction of thymic lymphoma by the high dose.

But I concede the possibility that Cecil didn’t notice this study. After all, it was in India, which we don’t really pay much attention to, being American chauvinists, right? Okay. But how did Cecil miss the UNSCEAR study entitled “Adaptive Responses to Radiation in Cells and Organisms” released in 1994, two full years before this article? It would be relevant, since it pretty much paraphrases to mean “Sorry, folks. Turns out we were COMPLETELY WRONG about that whole LNT model thing. Heh. Oh well. Win some, lose some, eh?”

There are nearly 100 years of studies (Actually, i can only find 95 years worth. Sorry.) that bear out that exposure to the amount of ionizing radiation that would have been present in these false teeth would decrease one’s risk of cancer and cause one to live slightly longer than a control specimen not exposed to such radiation. I’ll give you plenty of citations to look up at the end of this post.

But first, let me paste one of the more impressive passages of this 1999 Paduchah Sun article, to add emphasis:

In conclusion, I paste the second quote in Cecil’s article that I have issue with, and then I’ll cite a whole bunch of studies so the reader can see for themselves.

Cecil said:

WRONG! :wally
References:

Bhattarcharjee D., Role of Radio-Adaptation on Radiation-Induced Thymic Lymphoma in Mice. Mutation Research 358:231-235 (1996)

Yonezawa M., Misonoh J., Hosokawa Y., Two Types of X-Ray Induced Radioresistance in Mice, Presence of 4 Dose Ranges With Distinct Biological Effects, Mutation Research, 358:237-243 (1996)

Howe G.R., McLaughlin J., Breast Cancer Mortality Between 1950 and 1987 After Exposure to Fractionated Moderate-Dose-Rate Ionizing Radiation in the Canadian Fluoroscopy Cohort Study and a Comparison With Breast Cancer Mortality in the Atomic Bomb Survivors Study, Radiation Research 149:694-707 (1996)

Jawarowski Z., Beneficial Radiation, Nukleonika 40:3-12 (1995)

Cohen B. L., Test of the Linear No-Threshold Theory of Radiation Carcinogenesis in the Low Dose, Low Dose Rate Region, Health Physics 68:157-174 (1995)

Cardis E., et. al., Effects of Low Doses and Low Dose Rates of External Ionizing Radiation: Cancer Mortality Among Nuclear Industry Workers in Three Countries, Radiation Research 142:117-132 (1995)

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation; Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes, Annex B: Adaptive Responses to Radiation in Cells and Organisms, 185-272, New York, NY (1994)

Mifune M., Sobue T., Arimoto H., Komoto Y., Kondo S., Tanooka H., Cancer Mortality Survey in a Spa Area With a High Radon Background, Japanese Journal of Cancer Research, Vol. 83, No. 1 (1992)

Matanoski G. M., Health Effects of Low-Level Radiation in Shipyard Workers, Final Report. Report No. DOE DE-AC02-79 EV10095. Washington: US Department of Energy (1991)

Mine M., Okumura Y., Ichimaru M., Nakamura T., Kondo S., Apparently Beneficial Effect of Low to Intermediate Doses of A-bomb Radiation on Human Lifespan, International Journal of Radiation Biology 58:1035-1043 (1990)

Miller A. B., Howe G. R., Sherman G. J., Lindsay J. P., Yaffe M. J., Dinner P. J., Risch H. A., Preston D. L., Mortality from Breast Cancer After Irradiation During Fluoroscopic Examination in Patients Being Treated for Tuberculosis, New England Journal of Medicine 321:1285 (1989)

Nambi K. S. V., Soman S. D., Environmental Radiation and Cancer in India, Health Physics 52:653-657 (1987)

Abbat J. D., Hamilton T. R., Weeks J. L., Epidemiological Studies in Three Corporations Covering the Canadian Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Biological Effects of Low-Level Radiation, IAEA, Vienna, 351 (1983)

Luckey T. D., Physiological Benefits from Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, Health Physics 43:771-789 (1982)

Kumatori T., Ishihara T., Hirshima K., Sugiyama H., Ishii S., Miyoshi K., Follow-up Studies Over a 25 Year Period on the Japanese Fishermen Exposed to Radioactive Fallout in 1954, pp. 35-54, in Hubner K. F., and Fry, A. A., eds., The Medical Basis for Radiation Preparedness, Elsevier, New York (1980)

Frigerio N. A., Stowe R. S., Carcinogenic and Genetic Hazard From Background Radiation, Biological and Environmental Effects of Low-Level Radiation, IAEA, Vienna, Vol. II, pp. 385-393 (1976)

Muller H. J., Artificial Transmutations of the Gene, Science 66:84-87 (1928)

Russ V. K., Consensus of the Effect of X-Rays on Bacteria, Hygie 56:341-344 (1909)

PS - The phenomenon is known as hormesis.

Historical nonsense. For example, from this short history of the NRC:

Regardless of whether their recommendations were justified or not, UNSCEAR’s actions in 1958 were the result of a pre-existing debate. In that light, Cecil’s desciption of what happened with the AEC in the 1950s seems entirely plausible.

That “short history” is a secondary source, at best. And it’s a retrospective history. And the NRC has a vested interest in saying that, since their livelihood depends largely on radiophobia.

Unless you have an actual source to cite that there was any such “preexisting debate”, I’m afraid you aren’t showing one.

Fact is, Cecil didn’t do anything resembling a rigorous check on his facts.

Blatant lie. Any of the eighteeen primary sources I cited can trivially refute that. I only stopped because I saw no need to continuing. Would you like eighteen more?

Would you care to explain THIS, phybre.

BTW–cute name, very cute.
Pronounced “fibre”.
Health food fan, are we?

Hope you’re not leading up to a pitch for a radioactive dietary suppliment, 'cause the Mods here frown on spamming.

If your links are correct, why does every single industrial nation strictly regulate exposure levels?
Why did the old Warsaw Pact countries strictly regulate exposure levels?
Is everybody brainwashed?
Except you?
And, are the teachings of a pro-radiation guru looming on the horizon? :dubious: :dubious: :dubious:

Administrator hat on: Bosca, please be careful. Personal insults are not permitted in this forum. I’m going to read your comments as light-hearted joking in tone, rather than insults, and so you don’t get kicked in the shins. But that’s just because I’m feeling very kindly this morning.

phybre, welcome to the Straight Dope Message Boards. I know, it will be tempting to read some (well, at least one) of Bosca’s comments as insulting and to respond in kind. Please don’t succumb. Rise above it. In this forum, we do our best to maintain a tone of civil discussion on the topics: no insults, no flaming. Thanks!

No.

Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, from the column you linked:

I was not aware of this column, but I’m glad you pointed it out. It shows me that Cecil really doesn’t know anything about nuclear physics. Cecil is claiming that nuclear detonations that occurred 2 years previously in another state gave these people cancer? Let me explain several problems with that:

  1. While groundbursting causes the most fallout of any detonation type, there just isn’t a whole lot of fallout when you detonate in the desert. That’s kind of why they did it there.

  2. 99% of radioactive fallout isn’t radioactive for more than a fortnight. Iodine-131 has a half life of 8 days, and would be among the most dangerous elements in fallout. Xenon-133 has a half life of 5.2 days.

  3. The farther it travels, the less concentrated it is, further minimizing exposure risks. So even if the bulk of the fallout were comprised of cobalt-60, it’s bonded to fine desert dust, and it’s dispersed across (assuming the wind was blowing east the whole time) a great deal of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona.

Obviously these people did get sick, and I’m even willing to believe radiation was involved. But the odds of it being a result of nuclear testing are slim to nil. I would put more money on the guess that the government was illegally dumping nuclear waste nearby. Even though I have no reason to suspect it, and no way to prove it, even on those terms it’s more likely than nuclear fallout being the culprit. I’d also sooner bet that they coincidentally were filming on an undiscovered uranium vein. A particularly potent one.

Radioactive materials are dangerous, in general. Especially at the levels at which one would find them in nuclear waste. But low doses (say near 0.05 Sv) of ionizing radiation have been consistently shown to have the opposite effect as exposure to high levels of radiation. That is the definition of hormesis. Drastically different dose, opposite effect.

More or less, yeah. If by “everybody” you mean the general public that’s never been educated even slightly about nuclear physics. Which isn’t everybody. But I suspect you mean “everybody” as in “people in my age group, of my race, gender, and socio-economic background”. In which case the answer seems to be “probably”. I’m sure that the facts about plutonium, specifically, would shock you. In fact, I’m willing to eat 1mg of plutonium for every 1mg of pure caffeine you’re willing to consume, in one sitting. We’ll see which of us has more health problems down the road. Plutonium is only really dangerous when you have a critical mass of it.

Yeah, and the other thousands of people who have done the research. Do you think I wrote the 18 primary sources I cited? If I had, they wouldn’t be primary sources…

False–they did it there to minimize risk from flying debris. By putting it out in a remote desert region, civilians wouldn’t get killed by flying objects. Also, for security reasons.

**Irrelevant. ** Strontium 90, & radioactive Iodine & Cobalt isotopes are the most dangerous fallout materials. Their half-life periods are enourmous.

Huh? “Bonding to fine dust” doesn’t decrease levels of radioactivity. And cancer levels downwind of the fallout tracks were greatly elevated.

Please explain the immensely increased cancer rate of the soldiers who were exposed during Bomb tests in the 50’s. Over 98 percent died of cancer.

Cite?

Ah-- I see.

Why? Uranium ore isn’t harmful, except with prolonged exposure.

Atomic and Hydrogen Bomb tests produced huge amounts of radiation very quickly, and left dangerous wastes that last for generations. Nuclear wastes produce relatively little, except with prolonged exposure, or ingestion.
But the lesser source is more dangerous? :confused:

But you argued against this in this thread by suggesting that the lower doses from Uranium ore are more dangerous than fallout products.

No!
I asked why Nations and Nuclear Agencies from every nation on Earth take the opposite view from yours.
And I’ll take you up on that eating contest whenever you like.

You’ve cited those sources, yes.
But they’re not online, so we can’t read them ourselves, readily, to see if you have correctly interpeted their various results. And I’ll go with a “slow & careful” approach to dangerous materials every day.
After all, I know how Marie Curie died…

Fallout is flying debris. That’s what it is. Seriously. What did you think it was?

Did you even read what you just replied to? The half life of Iodine-131 is 8 days. It’s written right up there. I know that because I wrote it. The half life of cobalt-60 is about 5 years. Strontium-90 has a half life of 29 years. Given that plutonium-239 has a half life of 24,000 years, and uranium-235 has a half life of 700 million years, I don’t see how you can justify putting “enourmous” [sic] in italics.

To inject some reality into your post, strontium-90 is not a gamma emitter, and thus definately does not deserve to be characterized as one of the most dangerous fallout materials. I would consider the iodine to be the most dangerous, because the body will readily absorb it if you haven’t taken rad pills prior to being exposed. That will kill you a lot faster than cancer will. As I already said twice, there would be no 131I left after 2 years, even if it did somehow manage to get there in any concentration, which it wouldn’t.

“Bonding to fine dust” is pretty much the only way radiation can spread as a result of nuclear detonation. How do you think radiation spreads? It’s not infective. Radioactive elements bond to dust and other debris and are carried by the wind. Any radiactive material that is carried out from a detonation is ultra-fine. Rather like vapor, but solid. It will bond with dust as readily as water vapor does to form hail. When there’s less stuff for it to be carried by (i.e., when the detonation occurs in a desert), less of it is carried. That which is carried is spread over a very large area, due to the tiny mass of the carrier particle. Really dangerous fallout is stuff that has weight to it. Weight that nothing in the desert could contribute.

Further, what data have you seen about what regions were downwind of the Nevada Test Site in 1953? I have information about those tests that is relevant, which renders most of what you’re trying to say moot. I’ll put it at the end of this post.

What soldiers? Where? Nevada? Eniwetok? Bikini? Name a soldier that died due to radiation sickness in any US nuclear test. 98% ? According to whom? According to one of the 18 primary sources I cited (number 15 on my list; you obviously didn’t check), after 25 years, exactly zero of the Japanese fisherman exposed to radiation during the Bikini Atoll tests had died of cancer. Fisherman obviously aren’t soldiers, but I don’t know what soldiers you’re talking about…

I already knew you were confused. Yes, huge amounts of radiation. Over a relatively small area. Most of which lasts for only a few seconds. We’ve already gone over the dynamics of fallout, so how much nuclear material is left at the detonation site is completely irrelevant, since the film crew weren’t at the detonation site.

Nuclear wastes produce relatively little what? Radiation? Yes, you are confused. A very quick look at NRC’s website will inform you that there are three classifications of radioactive waste. Since I didn’t specify, and was speaking hypothetically, there’s really no point to argue about it.

You are mistaken. Further, presuming to tell me what I’m arguing is bad form. -5. It means I’ll probably ignore you, after I’m done typing this.

You’re free to give me as much of your contact data as you feel appropriate, to get the ball rolling on that. Or not. It strikes me as a very foolish bet, since you obviously have no knowledge of plutonium toxicology, or caffeine toxicology, whereas I do. You don’t seem to know that plutonium is an alpha-only emitter. You don’t seem to know that the LD50 of caffeine is far lower than that of plutonium. 30 seconds on Google would have clued you in. My opinion of you suffers when you don’t do basic research before you reply.

You are, again, mistaken. But this isn’t Search Engines 101. This is Cecil is (and, incidentally, you are) ignorant of basic nuclear physics.

Leukemia. By most accounts, the first person in the world to die of radiation sickness. She exposed herself to many Sieverts. It’s poetic, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Now then, what I promised to post:

Cecil’s very vague description of 11 nuclear detonations in 1953 is accurate, as far as that goes. But there are relevant factors and discrepancies to consider.

All the detonations in 1953 at the Nevada Test Site were part of Operation Upshot-Knothole. First detonation on 17 March, 1953. Last detonation on 4 June, 1953.

First of all, only 3 of the detonations actually occurred at Yucca flat. That’s irrelevant to everything, except Cecil misspoke. That is, of course, assuming that only Areas 2, 3, and 10 are truly at Yucca flat, whereas the rest of the Nevada Test Site is simply near Yucca flat.

Moving along, as I explained previously, detonations not at ground level produce significantly less fallout than ground detonations. That being said, only 3 of the detonations in 1953 were groundbursts. They had yields of 11 kilotons, 27 kilotons, and 61 kilotons, chronologically. The largest of these was about 5x Hiroshima and 3x Nagasaki.

If any of the detonations would have produced significant fallout, it was the 4 June, 1953, 61 kiloton detonation (codenamed Climax). So if you care to produce meteorological data for the region 40 miles northwest of Las Vegas, that would be the day on which to start. Good luck with that. According to data at the site, the detonation was 172 feet west, and 232 feet north of the designated ground zero. That heavily suggests that the wind was in fact blowing north-northwest, and not east.

The winds would have to have been easterly and cyclonic to carry ALL the fallout to one specific region in Utah, keeping it concentrated, and then the cyclonic winds would have had to suddenly stop dead to get it all to the ground in the same place. This is an unreasonable scenario. Had these general conditions not prevailed, the fallout would have distributed in a physically reasonable way, which would mean that it would have been disbursed in such a way that there would be nowhere you could stand, even for the length of time making a movie requires, where you would be exposed to any significant rads.

Also, Climax was an ultra-efficient plutonium weapon. Much less dangerous fallout for its yield, as compared to similar yield weapons of the past.

This is, of course, all beside the point. I’m addressing Cecil’s article about Uranium in false teeth, not his article about mysterious cancer that has no discernable link to anything.

Facts and sources would be great. So far, I’ve seen you provide neither. Your understanding of the subject matter seems to be wanting. You’re acting unreasonably hostile, given that I’m only stating established facts. When you have something interesting you want me to reply to, let me know, and perhaps I will. Until then, check out this website. This way you might have something real to dispute if you choose to reply again.

  1. No, that’s not what you asked. Perhaps it’s what you meant to ask.

  2. Every nation on Earth doesn’t have a “Nuclear Agency”. In fact, less than half do. In fact, only about 30 are in any position to determine the facts for themselves. Of them, only 8 really are. Those would be the US, Russia, the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel.

  3. They all don’t take the opposite view from mine. For example, every member nation of the UN agrees with me, considering that my main source in the parent post is a UN study. I suspect you didn’t actually read my post.

Either way, as I mentioned in the other reply, I’m ignoring you until such a time that you settle down.

BWA-HA-HA!
That’s rich!
I’m the only one troubling to respond to your post! :smiley:

[list=a]
[li]radioactive by-products of the generated in the nulcear reaction that causes the Bomb’s detonation[/li][li]Materials in the environment around the Bomb that are altered by the nuclear reaction.[/li][/list]

Flying debris consists of stones, sand, gravel, & man-made objects in the area of the blast that are thrown into the air, with great velocity & force.
For example, in the first A-Bomb test, a multi-ton steel safe, used by the military & carelessly left near the Bomb tower, was thrown several miles & embedded itself in the ground.

It would seem that Cecil is demonstratably wrong again. By all probability, the 1953 Upshot-Knothole nuclear detonations at the Nevada Test Site would have had an insignificant effect on the health of the Conqueror cast.

If any detonations affected their health, they must have been the Operation Teapot detonations, February to May, 1955. Cecil doesn’t seem to know this occurred, or else why didn’t he mention it? There were nuclear detonations occurring potentially at the same time as the filming. With this time frame, it is much more reasonable to believe that they were exposed to radioactive fallout – as it was falling. Had the radioactive materials already been there for 2 years, there would have been very little risk of inhaling or ingesting them, nor would there have been much to inhale or ingest. However, John Wayne died of lung and stomach cancer, Agnes Moorehead died of lung cancer, Dick Powell died of stomach cancer, and Susan Hayward died of unspecified cancer. It’s reasonable to assume that all the other cast members who died of cancer had similar types. This is consistent with breathing and ingesting fresh radioactive fallout.

Where low levels of radiation exposure can have therapeutic effects, and high levels of radiation can have acute lethal effects, medium levels of radiation, especially when inhaled and ingested, carry increased cancer risk as their main danger. The cast members took in an amount of radioactive material too high to be beneficial, and too low to be poisoning. Thus, more of them died of lung and stomach cancer than an average group would be expected to.

Despite this, it’s significant to note that none of the four named specimens died excessively prematurely. Even the 50% increase in cancer mortality in the group didn’t significantly shorten their lifespans. Had they been exposes to low levels of ionizing radiation prior to going to Utah the studies I cited in the parent post show that there very well could have been no increased cancer risk, compared to an average group.

Again, most significant is that Cecil named the wrong year, and the wrong batch of detonations. Also, there were 14 Teapot detonations, to Upshot-Knothole’s 11. :smack:

[list=a]
[li]radioactive by-products of the generated in the nulcear reaction that causes the Bomb’s detonation[/li][li]Materials in the environment around the Bomb that are altered by the nuclear reaction.[/li][/list]

Neither a nor b are radioactive fallout, by themselves. “a” by itself produces little fallout, which is why an airburst does far less ecological damage than a groundburst. “b” by itself is not radioactive. You obviously don’t know how radiation propagates. Materials that are exposed to radiation don’t become radioactive. They become irradiated. There’s a big difference.

At any rate, only when “a” combines with “b” (which is flying debris, to use your term) is there radioactive fallout.

To paraphrase you (in order to make it correct):

Flying debris consists of stones, dirt, sand, gravel, man-made objects, and/or anything else in the area of the blast that is thrown into the air. That debris which doesn’t have the mass to immediately return to the ground combines with the radioactive material and is carried by the wind to produce fallout.

fallout: A general term for debris which falls to the earth from an eruption cloud.
geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of96-738/glossary.html

fallout: Radioactive debris that falls to earth after a nuclear explosion.
tis.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/achre/glossary.html

fallout: The process or phenomenon of the descent to the earth’s surface of particles contaminated with radioactive material from the radioactive cloud.
nuketesting.enviroweb.org/nukeffct/enw77m.htm

fallout: The precipitation to earth of particulate matter from a nuclear cloud; also applied to the matter itself, which may or may not be radioactive.
www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/34-81-1/Gloss.htm

Hate to burst your bubble, but reports by UN component agencies do not mean that all UN members approve of its contents. In fact, I am unaware of the General Assembly ever unanimously voting to affirm the findings of a scientific investigation. Your claim makes no sense whatsoever. You might as well have claimed that every American agrees with “x” because the National Academy of Sciences produced a report that, in part, claims “x.”

Oh, second thought. If you really insist that all members of the UN believe that small doses of radiation are an aid to good health, could you please point me to the part of this report that makes any reference whatsoever to health benefits? (warning, large PDF) I can’t find a thing except for medical therapy for cancer, to name a specific example. I can’t find a single line about any other low level exposures being a “good thing.”

Good thing I never said otherwise. Good thing fact does not need to be approved of to be agreed with. Good thing diplomacy has nothing to do with science.

The things you are unaware of could probably fill volumes. Again, fact is not voted on. I vote that the rabbit is red. Reductio ad absurdum.

THIS claim makes no sense whatsoever. Nations are not individuals. Nations are not sentient. Nations are not morally equivalent to individuals. The example does not scale.

I’m continually surprised that the most extraneous things I say have the most emotional impact on the most unstable people. As if any of this has anything to do with the scientific fact of a nonstandard dose-response curve for ionizing radiation.

Is it that people are intimidated by an in-depth scientific discussion, and thus reply in the only ways they know how? Irrelevant garbage? The signal to noise ratio here so far has been 0. I’ll wait a few hours and see if it improves.

You say that as if being an alpha-only (actually just primarily alpha, but we’ll gloss over that) emitter would somehow make it safer to eat. But the very properties which make alpha sources reasonably safe to handle also make them especially dangerous to ingest. And while it’s true that plutonium has a higher LD50 than caffeine, you seem unaware that plutonium, like all heavy metals, is a bioaccumulant, whereas caffeine is flushed out of the body in a matter of hours, which would make it exceedingly unwise to match a person gram-for-gram with plutonium vs. caffeine.

Meanwhile, if there’s a multi-ton steel safe falling towards me, my primary concern will not be whether or not it’s radioactive. My primary concern will be that it’s going to squish me flat. It’s the latter danger which the government was addressing by performing the tests in the desert, not the former, since the desert contains few large chunks of debris. Dust, however, the desert has plenty of.

Ahem: "They all don’t take the opposite view from mine. For example, every member nation of the UN agrees with me, considering that my main source in the parent post is a UN study. "

Please explain that.

I’m illustrating the fallacy of division. I thought someone who claims such familiarity with science would be aware of the importance of logical arguments.

I realize you are new here. There is another forum on this board for personal insults, which are not allowed elsewhere. It’s called the BBQ Pit. Check it out.

C’mon Bosda, half life isn’t the end all and be all. I work with In-111 and Tl-121. In-111 has a half life of 67.92 hours and Tl-121 73.0944. Which am I more concerned with? In-111, because it’s gamma emission is 171 and 245 keV, as opposed to 135 and 167 for Tl-121. Additionally if you have a long half life, you get less exposure since it isn’t decaying that fast.

Where do you find Iodine with long half-lifes? The highest I can think of is I-125 with a half-life of 60 days.

I’ve heard about hormesis at work, though I’m not sure how much I believe. But the US and UK both have exposure limits for workers, limits that are supposed to keep us below the threshold for both acute and chronic effects. I’m not very worried about low levels of exposure, considering the background we get each year.

I’m confused. There must be many billions or even trillions of radiactive iodine-131 atoms in a fallout cloud and if half of them decay after 8 days and half the remainder in another 8 days and half the remainder in another 8 days and half the remainer in another 8 days…

Isn’t it going to take a lot longer than a fortnight before the radiation level falls to 1% of the original fall out levels?

phybre do you have any readily available online sources for your claims of possible health benifits of low level ionizing radiation, sites which would satisfy the scientists amongst us?