Something the teacher mentioned in physics class today - a large number of cancers are caused by mutations to DNA caused by gamma radiation. So, were some people to live in a house covered with a few feet of lead to block cosmic radiation, would this significantly reduce their risk of getting cancer? And if so, why haven’t some nuts done that yet?
And yes, it would be a bad idea to lick the walls.
I know that gamma radiation can damage DNA but is thare any scientific cite or study showing that cosmic gamma rays encountered in living on the earth’s surface are a major cause of human cancer?
This cite on cosmic rays suggests that the atmosphere protects us. At least it does those of us who dwell mostly on the surface.
I dunno, but wouldn’t it significantly increase your risk of getting lead poisoning?
Plus there’s neutrinos. Nobody knows what they do and they pass right through lead.
IIRC the human body REQUIRES a certain amount of extraterrestrial radiation for good healtn.
They housed TB patients in Mammoth Cave, KY and results of treatment did not meet expectations on that account.
Are you talking about vitamin D production or something else?
Actually, we have a pretty good idea about neutrinos. Which is that if they can pass right through lead, then they are also going to pass through your much less dense body. The odds of a neutrino interacting with pretty much anything is incredibly low. They’ve set up vast detection tanks to identify neutrino interactions and, insofar as I recall, they went for years without getting a hit.
As for the OP, well, mebbe. Or it might turn out that your foundation is leaking radon and you’ve actually increased your exposure to radiation by staying inside all the time. I’m guessing that if you talked about a million people into trying the experiment, you might see a small statistical decrease in some forms of cancer, but the effect might be lost in the noise.
I’m going to agree with Finagle’s response, and expand a little.
First, the thinking in radiation health physics is that any radiation exposure will increase the target organism’s chance of contracting cancer. Last time I read up on it there was still a debate between the ‘cumulative’ and ‘threshold’ schools of thought, but it seemed that the ‘cumulative’ school was gaining momentum.* Having said that, chronic doses of the order of about 100-200 mREM a year (approximately 10 times the normal exposure for persons at sea level) is not going to raise the cancer rate in the affected population signifigantly. I’m basing that last on the Johns Hopkins study of US Navy nuclear power exposure they did in the early 90’s. They found that it was impossible to find an increase in the cancer rate for seamen working on navy nuclear power plants, compared to the general population.**
For non-smokers the sources of natural radiation exposure come from three or four general categories: cosmic rays, radon and radon decay daughters, household potassium products (porcelain, in particular), and fallout from nuclear detonations. Of those four, the smallest exposure comes from the fallout, IIRC.*** The other three are about equally divided. Now, lead has a tenth thickness of about 2 inches for most gamma radiation: That is that the thickness of lead that will reduce the gamma flux by 90% is 2 inches. So, to get a 99.9% reduction in the cosmic gamma radiation you’d have to encase the house in 6 inches of lead. That’s on all six sides, too. And, even if one did line one’s house in lead that’s only 1/3 of the natural background.
Far, far too expensive to contemplate for a very low level hazard.
*‘cumulative’ vs. ‘threshold’ schools: Most rad health physics types believe that all radiation damage is cumulative, and so lifetime dose should be measured down to the smallest fraction of a REM. The iconoclasts believe that there is some reason to believe that there is a repair mechanism on the cellular level that can correct small levels of radiation damage, so long as the acute radiation dose does not exceed an as-yet-undetermined value.
**There are some people who criticized the Johns Hopkins study, because the study found that cancer rates were lower in the exposed group, compared to the general population. The explaination for that, IMNSHO, is that naval personnel have to meet minimum physical standards that mean that they can be assumed, as a group, to be in better health than the general population. Also, the study discounted incidents of most lung cancers (esp. mesothelioma) as being due to either asbestos exposure (A very real health hazard in the Navy, even today.) or smoking.
*** This actually dates to my initial training back in the early 90’s, when it had been years and years since anyone had done aboveground testing of nukes. With the displays by Pakistan and India, this may have changed.