NAS falsified data on radiation safety to justify widespread use!

[haidut]

As if coming straight from Peat's articles!
Happened at the highest levels and as early as 1956. As a result, medical regulatory bodies around the world, and not just US, adopted linear dose response limits while in reality there is a unique radiation safety threshold for every person, that varies wildly from person to person, and should not be exceeded.
In other words, the highest scientific body in the US (National Academy of Science) committed outright fraud with the goal of concealing from the public that ionizing radiation exposure is cumulative, and there is really no such thing as a safe exposure level (safe threshold).

http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 015-1455-3

"...These omissions and misrepresentations not only belie the notion of an impartial and independent appraisal by the NAS Panel, but also amount to falsification and fabrication of the research record at the highest possible level, leading ultimately to the adoption of LNT by governments worldwide. Based on previously unexamined correspondence among panel members and Genetics Panel meeting transcripts, this paper provides the first documentation of these historical developments."

 

[charlie]

And I was just thinking today.....I have had hundreds of x-rays. No wonder I can't get well.

 

[Such_Saturation]

From what I remember, Ray Peat has spoken against treshold measures.

 

[haidut]

From what I remember, Ray Peat has spoken against treshold measures.

Well, I think the context of him saying that was in the sense that he was against anything other than 0 exposure (from artificial sources) being labelled as "safe" threshold.

 

[jyb]

What do you think of exposure in the plane when it's at peak altitude? I know it's been discussed briefly on this forum years ago. Leaving aside the other radiation exposure from security scans before you board the plane

 

[jaa]

Depends on the type of xray. A NY to LA flight is more harmful than a dental xray, but safer than a chest xray.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/v ... age-chart/

 

[jaa]

Damn even the average daily background exposure is higher than a dental xray

 

[Such_Saturation]

I think Ray Peat would talk about different kinds of x-ray as in different energies, that the energies at sea level and from scans are in the sweet spot to dissolve inside your body the most.

 

[haidut]

I think Ray Peat would talk about different kinds of x-ray as in different energies, that the energies at sea level and from scans are in the sweet spot to dissolve inside your body the most.

This.
Somebody asked him about radiation in one of those KMUD interviews and quoted the NYC-LA flight example. Ray said that at high altitude the cosmic rays are not as dangerous. Here is this quote from him.

http://peatarian.com/4170/how-harmful-i ... -is-flying

"Not likely. The biological effects of radiation decrease as altitude increase. LET and mesons explain the relationship." - Ray Peat

 

[jaa]

Good to know thanks guys.

 

[TeslaFan]

Damn even the average daily background exposure is higher than a dental xray

Radiation is measured as amount per unit of time. So the same amount of radiation spread over 24 hours is not the same as when it is concentrated in a fraction of a second, as with X rays. Most people are not aware of this simple fact, so, for example, TSA can say that going through an airport scanner is the same as 15 minutes of high altitude flying. This is misleading. Amount of radiation means nothing unless we know the time over which it is applied.

 

[jaa]

Thanks skominac. That makes a lot more sense of the living in a concrete building for a year dose.

 

[Meecho]

“The LNT [linear no-threshold] model lies at a foundation of a postulate that all exposure to ionizing radiation is harmful, regardless of how low the dose is, and that the effect is cumulative over lifetime.”

“The LNT model opposes two competing schools of thought: the threshold model, which assumes that very small exposures are harmless, and the radiation hormesis model, which claims that radiation at very small doses can be beneficial.”

“A 2016 peer-reviewed meta-analysis rejected the LNT […]”

That’s a bad change, as I can see.

Source: Linear no-threshold model - Wikipedia