34. Radiation Hormesis

[@mitocw]

To report potential content errors, please use this form: forms.gle/8B2zcUvfCtgJdTdE7

[@pieterhogendoorn7818]

Michael Short is an excellent teacher. I love how he invites the students to think and draw their own conclusions. In a relaxed way he's teaching them not only the subject, but also the scientific method.

[@weedmanwestvancouverbc9266]

My wife has worked in the dental industry for her entire working career and is now getting close to retirement. Lead aprns have always been used but they weren't always very careful about keeping parents of young patients out of the area but now they do. If there is a risk, it's best to avoid that risk until it can be determined one way or another. These days however digital x-rays require a lot lower Flux Of ionizing radiation

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

36:00 Yes, the data collections are all over the place, and that's kind of the problem with citing any kind of hormetic effect. When a whole population gets exposed to radiation, it varies between persons, between different organs, and over time. Different people may have different types of exposure-a gamma blast for one, thyroid exposure to iodine from drinking milk to another. Once you have a lot of exposures, I'd expect any hormetic effects to essentially fade away.

[@terrych6175]

I dont know if I understand correctly but this idea of radiation hormesis explores if there is any benefit at all from low dose radiation to a human and if there is any at what dose does the benefit go away and harm becomes the result of erradiation of a human. In the studies that they are looking at in the video are used people and their length of life after erradiation and their physical health. At least thats what I can understand by the lecture. If I were to make a study on that topic I would have the following question that need to be answered in order to find any relevant results to the topic and a conclusion can be drawn from. 1. how are the affected tissues reacting to the radiation for a period of time (preferably a lifetime of the whole organism) 2. how are they comparing to the control group for the same parameters(age, location, personal habits, sex) and lifespan 3. how are the surrounding(not affected directly) tissues reacting to those that are. 4. how are they comparing to the control group. 5. What are the short term and long term reactions of the whole organism to this stimuly. 6. Looking at all that above, to what other stimuly are these results comperable to. 7. If comperable to any how so. 8. are there simillar results between the two after the stimuly.

[@weedmanwestvancouverbc9266]

Probably that tuberculosis study is fairly old as Modern Sanitation and methods have virtually eliminated it as a fairly common disease and now it's what you would call pretty rare. There are some exceptions it is still pretty endemic along native populations in North America especially Rural and high North areas. And not surprising, it's making a comeback in inner cities that have a significant population of homelessness and drug abuse

[@maxbook9560]

I recently got a non contrast helical ct scan and have haven’t been able to sleep due to night fevers and what seem to be heat strokes, right away I felt pressure on my chest during the ct scan and after felt like my chest/brain got sliced and feel spike in that area. Zero sleep and my whole body is numb feel spikes everywhere. Don’t have no drive but slowly recovering. Dangerous af, wasn’t even necessary like that but the bright side is maybe I become a superhero because of radiation hormesis

[@weedmanwestvancouverbc9266]

As part of a physics paper I wrote to make up for a missed exam due to the flu, my professor from cap College got me to go do a paper on TRIUMF and they needed subjects to do a pet scan on for a monetary renumeration of course. I had to stay around though for a number of hours. I did get a whirring call in the following week about a mass that was inside me. Back in the 80s you couldn't view pet scans in real time, the data had to be recorded on magnetic tape then set for data analysis which took time to generate a picture turns out I have an extra kidney

[@caioferrari]

1:05:45 someone said: "I'll miss this class". Me too =)

[@OveBakken]

Damn, I miss the energy when sitting in an auditorium with fellow students and learning something. I already have two completed degrees, but sometimes I feel like I should get another.

[@hunterdelarm6773]

I am in the camp of radiation hormesis. I predict that life evolved with radiation and thus life became interwoven with radiation. Removing radiation entirely may allow some cells to survive when they would normally not and perhaps this harms the living organism.

[@CyanOgilvie]

While I think the idea of radiation hormesis is plausible given how often this pattern arises in biological systems, and because many of the things we freely accept as beneficial are actually poisons that act to stimulate endogenous antioxidant production in response to oxidative stress (exactly the same mechanism we would expect from low dose radiation), I don't think the mouse data showing increased immune response at low doses is a point in favour of an hormetic effect - I interpret that as inflammation being triggered by a small amount of damage to the tissue, and declining when the dose was high enough to damage the immune system's ability to mount an inflammatory response. Inflammation is absolutely not a positive thing on its own, it is directly harmful to the organism, but the trade-off of acute, transient inflammation as part of resolving an infection or for tissue damage outweighs the direct harms of the inflammation. But in this case the question being considered is whether there is benefit in a small dose relative to none, so the triggered inflammation is in response to an injury that wouldn't be there in the no-dose condition, and so the inflammation is entirely negative, as is the injury.

[@weedmanwestvancouverbc9266]

There are some patterns that come before this. Stimulus of the immune system by various outside factors besides radiation is a phenomenon that has been known for a while In the fifties my mother worked for a doctor at Winnipeg University who was studying the outcomes of people who had polio, and what he found was a correlation between relative wealth of the family or individual and the severity of the disease. They found that there was remarkably better outcomes among people who were in the lower socioeconomic demographics. I believe the paper was written by a Dr Greenwood

[@camresearch5120]

Who funded the study and why is perhaps the most confounding variable. Otherwise the tobacco companies can provide studies that "proves" smoking will cure all afflictions. 😅

[@reneyoo6111]

i had to make 2 lung x-rays at round about 0.025 msv to get a job , do you guys think it had a bad or good effect for my longevity? Because i stress myself a little out doing it for just getting a job without any medical reason .

[@RubenHernandez-yd5nb]

It’s so minimal it will not have any effect on your longevity. 2 chest x-rays is equivalent to 20 days of background radiation.

[@DDDelgado]

I have gotten 10 one day, still alive many years later

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

1:16:18 No, again, that's not a good example. Yes, UV does have risks and benefits, but with the question of radiation hormesis we're attempting to compare risks of the SAME thing-namely, cancer. Is that the wrong question? I'd say it's a totally valid question. Yes, there are others you can ask, but it's completely valid to explore that one.

[@kyks6771]

Im not sure if theres a lady in beirut besides the “M” figure in the US, who’s been there since the beginning.. if so would u come work with me?

[@kyks6771]

Cant b all imagination

[@kyks6771]

If someone holding a 100k n believes its mine, ill gladly pay this much to sort my visa n travel bookings..and all the hassle..this is no joke

[@adityamahajan5296]

Very well explained

[@makylemur7019]

There are two rules for biological systems: There is no such thing as an inert substance and more is not better. (or the dose makes the poison).

[@ianprado1488]

Yes

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

Vitamins do not seem a good example of hormesis. A small amount may not be harmful in any way. With hormesis, we're talking about something that creates a challenge to the organism. A much better analogy might actually be exercise.

[@yahnniemeng]

Alcohol is a good analogy here. Lots of controversy about low level alcohol ingestion and positive or negative health effects.

[@nuclearcatbaby1131]

A small amount is insufficiently helpful which is kind of the same as being harmful.

[@thinker1056]

🕵🛐🤓

[@raderator]

Spewing back your professor's nutty leftist ideas is how you write a thesis.

[@HMijailAntonQuiles]

Namecalling is how you show that you have no point. Did you actually watch it? He seemed to be pretty keen to accept hormesis, if only there was a reason to do so.

[@sir_saltsalot]

Sir this is a nuclear engineering class

[@danridesbikes7183]

@@sir_saltsalot leftist ideas = education of any kind

[@danridesbikes7183]

@@HMijailAntonQuiles Leftist ideas = education of any kind

[@bobbysnickers249]

These students are annoying. It would be nice if they could actually give an unbiased argument, but you can see how their bias is anti-hormesis.

[@LFTRnow]

The best argument I've seen for radiation hormesis came from this 2007 Taiwan study where radioactive Co-60 was accidentally mixed in with regular cobalt in the steel used to build an apartment building. The residents were shown to have less cancer risk than the average population in a very statistically significant way. Note this is an NIH study, not a crackpot site. See Fig 1 at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/

[@paulrichards3928]

Any excuse to trot out the Radiation Hormesis Hypothesis, Bovine Stercus-BS. FACEPALM 🙈 ⚠ Nonetheless 30 years of data on the TAIPEI Incident was peer-reviewed. Nature - British Journal of Cancer -BJC - epidemiology "30 years follow-up and increased risks of breast cancer and leukaemia after long-term low-dose-rate radiation exposure" "Six thousand two hundred and forty-two Taiwanese people received extra exposure in residential and school buildings constructed with Co-60-contaminated steel from 1982 until informed and relocated in the early 1990s. The additional doses received have been estimated. During 1983-2012, 300 cancer cases were identified through the national cancer registry in Taiwan, 247 cases with minimum latent periods from initial exposure. The hazard ratios (HR) of site-specific cancers were estimated with additional cumulative exposure estimated individually." "Results: Dose-dependent risks were statistically significantly increased for leukaemia excluding chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (HR100mSv 1.18; 90% CI 1.04-1.28), breast cancers (HR100mSv 1.11; 90% CI 1.05-1.20), and all cancers (HR100mSv 1.05; 90% CI 1.0-1.08, P=0.04). Women with an initial age of exposure lower than 20 were shown with dose response increase in breast cancers risks (HR100mSv 1.38; 90% CI 1.14-1.60; P=0.0008). Conclusions: Radiation exposure before age 20 was associated with a significantly increased risk of breast cancer at much lower radiation exposure than observed previously" "...suggested that when individuals were exposed at younger ages, the risks of developing breast cancers or solid cancers were similar for acute or chronic radiation exposure...." CAPISH? Keywords: 'significantly increased risk of breast cancer at much lower radiation' 'individuals were exposed at younger' 'similar for acute or chronic radiation exposure' Cohort - 6542 Taiwanese people www.nature.com/articles/bjc2017350

[@reneyoo6111]

So i guess my 2 lung-x rays i had to make to get a job at the police protect me from breast cancer .. good to know xd

[@nuclearcatbaby1131]

The best evidence I’ve seen is that Danny Elfman gets yearly CT scans for non-medical artistic reasons yet hasn’t had cancer yet at age 70 and is even remarkably healthy for his age.

[@terrych6175]

@@nuclearcatbaby1131 and Yet any probability bellow 100% appointed to a sample size of one participant only doesnt prove nor deny the idea of radiation hormesis. This person that you are talking about, being only him that is doing this and not another 500 000 people across the world only tells us that he might be healthier BECAUSE of the CT scans OR DESPITE them. His biological clock might as well be rolling the dice of fate every day and be just fine. Its the same with the risks of dying in a plane crash. The more you fly the higher the chance to become part of the statistics yet you can go all your life without experiencing a fatal crash (or any crash). On the other hand you might fly very few times in your life and actually die on your 1,2,3rd flight. From having such small sample size you cannot extract anything usefull from the situation.