Sanders C.L. Radiobiology and Radiation Hormesis. New Evidence and its Implications for Medicine and Society

Springer, 2017. — 279 p.The field of radiation hormesis has been built upon the early comprehensive work of Luckey and more recent work of Ed Calabrese. Optimal health for Luckey included prevention of cancer and a wide variety of inflammatory diseases. Why people have not acted on this provocative hypothesis is largely due to the false paradigm of the linear no-threshold (LNT) assumption and resultant radio-phobia that is built upon early fraudulent mutational studies. The questioning of survivability from nuclear war, the termination of oceanic and atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, and the promotion of exaggerated health effects of radiological “dirty” bombs were all due to radio-phobia following application of the LNT assumption.
There is a debate among those opposed to the LNT assumption as to whether to accept radiation hormesis as a legitimate aspect of radiobiology. All sides opposed to the LNT agree that there are thresholds in the radiation dose-response. But what happens before the threshold for some seems up for debate. A plutonium threshold for lung cancer is related to spatial-temporal dose distribution as well as radiation hormesis. Rejection of thresholds has enormous implications concerning the costs of radiation protection and socio-psychological aspects of resultant radio-phobia. Acceptance of radiation hormesis means that low dose radiation (LDR) is not associated with increased risk of acquiring a wide variety of inflammatory and proliferative diseases below the threshold dose, but that LDR actually prevents their occurrence below that which might be expected in unexposed control groups. This is particularly evident with exposures to radon. A further disagreement among advocates of thresholds occurs with using LDR to treat people with active disease in a clinical setting. Radiation hormesis has not received significant traction among radiologists and medical physicists. This may be due to a high level of ignorance, indifference, antipathy, resistance, and prejudice among most physicians and their patients.
One criticism against the clinical application of radiation hormesis is the lack of epidemiological studies to investigate the efficacy of LDR for any disease category. There are some exceptions, as in the treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and an ongoing European study of physician patients with radon health spa prescriptions. There is a resistance to read and evaluate anecdotal cases or individual testimonials (among them are those of the author), no matter how detailed or numerous they may be. However common sense and personal experience should trump the conclusions of the epidemiological elite who may manipulate data to force fit the LNT assumption and promote preconceived conclusions of fantasy harm.
The abscopal effect was proposed by R.H. Mole in 1953 in reference to the shrinking of metastatic tumor outside the radiation field used to treat the primary tumor [3]. The bystander effect examines alterations in un-irradiated cells from signals sent out from irradiated cells. There are possibilities for cellular communication of healing signals within the body, such as by very weak light photons and quantum communication that may be associated with bystander effects.Movers of radiation hormesis.
Radiological weapons.
Development of nuclear weapons.
Atmospheric tests.
Predicted radiation effects of strategic nuclear war.
Nuclear winter.
Survival of nuclear war.
Dirty bomb.
Unexpected resources.
The Harmful and fraudulent basis for the Linear no-Threshold (LNT) assumption.
A scientific scandal of the last two centuries.
The scan that cures.
Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Statistical and Observational Malfeasance.
Muller’s deception and Russell’s mistake.
Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information (S.A.R.I.).
Thresholds.
Caloric restriction.
Radiation deficiency.
Radiation hormesis-threshold model.
Mechanisms of radiation hormesis.
Thresholds for animals.
Thresholds in humans.
Plutonium particle toxicity myth.
Atmospheric nuclear weapons tests.
Hot particle problem.
Sources of environmental plutonium.
Plutonium particle aggregation.
Lung cancer in animals.
Plutonium carcinogenesis in humans.
United States Transuranium and Uranium Registries (U.S.T.U.R.).
Wonderful radon.
Continental surveys for radon dosimetry.
High background radiation areas.
Uranium mines.
Residential radon.
Radon spas and clinics.
Radium therapy.
Montana radon health mines (Ankylosing spondylitis; Rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis; Multiple sclerosis; bronchitis;
Ulcerative colids; Hepatitis C infection; Scleroderma; Asthma, Behcet’s syndrome, and psoriasis; Migraine, headache, gout, and fibromyalgia; Primary pulmonary hypertension; Glomerulosclerosis; Carpal TUNNEL).
Radium dial painters.
Thorium.
Natural nuclear reactor on the Colorado plateau: Radiological characterization.
Benefits in disease prevention, control, and cure.
Lifespan.
Radiation hormesis in epidemiology.
Reverse aging.
Inflammation.
Arthritis.
Infections.
Cardiovascular-related chronic diseases.
Neurodegenerative disease.
Historical radiation therapy.
Neoplastic transformation.
Immune therapy.
Abscopal (bystander) effect.
Low-dose radiation therapy.
Therapeutic use of radiation from radioactive pads.
Heuristic view on quantum bio-photon cellular communication.
Quantum biology.
Quantum mechanics.
Properties of light.
Teleportation.
DNA.
Brain.
Radiation adaptive response.