NAS falsified data on radiation safety to justify widespread use!

Discussion in 'Genes, Radiation' started by haidut, Jan 21, 2015.

  1. haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    16,431
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    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."
     
  2. charlie

    charlie The Law & Order Admin

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    10,866
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    And I was just thinking today.....I have had hundreds of x-rays. No wonder I can't get well. :cry:
     
  3. Such_Saturation

    Such_Saturation Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2013
    Messages:
    7,364
    From what I remember, Ray Peat has spoken against treshold measures.
     
  4. OP
    haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    16,431
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    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.
     
  5. jyb

    jyb Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2012
    Messages:
    2,751
    Location:
    UK
    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 :lol:
     
  6. jaa

    jaa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Messages:
    1,035
  7. jaa

    jaa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Messages:
    1,035
    Damn even the average daily background exposure is higher than a dental xray
     
  8. Such_Saturation

    Such_Saturation Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2013
    Messages:
    7,364
    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.
     
  9. OP
    haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    16,431
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    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
     
  10. jaa

    jaa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Messages:
    1,035
    Good to know thanks guys.
     
  11. skominac

    skominac Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    Messages:
    219
    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.
     
  12. jaa

    jaa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Messages:
    1,035
    Thanks skominac. That makes a lot more sense of the living in a concrete building for a year dose.
     
Loading...