Dr. Kiyohiko Sakamoto – Low Dose Radiation Used as Cancer Treatment

Dr. Kiyohiko Sakamoto was one of the presenters at the American Nuclear Society 2012 Annual Meeting President’s Special Session on Low Level Radiation and Its Implications For Fukushima Recovery. The session organizers thought that his work on using whole body and half body radiation treatments to cure cancer and prevent recurrence was important enough to share with the meeting attendees that they arranged for him to come to the meeting all the way from Sendai, Japan.

Aside: Even if you are not familiar with Japanese geography, you might remember that Sendai was close enough to the March 11, 2011 earthquake epicenter that it was used as the name of the event in the early days before the media retagged the event as the Fukushima nuclear disaster. End Aside.

Dr. Sakamoto, a medical doctor (MD) and a PhD has been studying the effects of radiation experimentally since 1975 and medically since 1985. He started his career in Radiology in 1964. Based on what he has learned he made the following statement early in his presentation:

Based on my experience in treating many patients the radiation level near Fukushima is not a cancer risk.

(Emphasis in the original.)

Though a mutual friend, Dr. Sakamoto has asked that his presentation slides be posted here so that more people can understand the basis on which he has made that important assertion.

Just in case you do not take the time to click on the presentation link, here are the conclusions that Dr. Sakamoto wanted his audience to take out of the presentation:


    Conclusions

  • Much information is known about the effects of low dose and low levels of radiation on living organisms, especially mice and people
  • Low doses of radiation stimulate:
    • immunity to cancer
    • biological defenses against DNA damage
  • LDR (Low Dose Radiation) can be used to cure / prevent cancer
  • The dose or dose rate at which radiation starts to become harmful is also known
  • There is no basis to fear low-level radiation

I think those are reassuring and useful thoughts with which to leave you and the residents of the Fukushima prefecture. Despite everything that serious researchers like Dr. Sakamoto have learned about the health effects of low level radiation those residents are still being told by fear mongers like Arnie Gundersen and Helen Caldicott that they should live in fear or that they will never be able to return to their homes.

The media establishment – perhaps because of the importance of fossil fuel advertising to its bottom line – is helping to reinforce that scary and untrue message. What I cannot understand is the assistance being provided by nuclear professionals who cling to the LNT assumption in the face of mounting evidence that it is wrong and probably hazardous to human health.


Additional Reading

ANS Nuclear Cafe – Implications of improved radiation protection standards for Fukushima evacuees

Nuclear Diner – The Effects of Low-Level Radiation

About Rod Adams

56 Responses to “Dr. Kiyohiko Sakamoto – Low Dose Radiation Used as Cancer Treatment”

Read below or add a comment...

  1. Hi Rod:

    My Google “pseudo-science” alarm came up red again. There is nothing new about using radiation for cancer therapy (nor genotoxic chemicals). That doesn’t dispute LNT it supports it (radiation is genotoxic and kills cancer cells). I criticize those who promote Caldicott & Gundersen as well (I would criticize them directly but their websites don’t allow commenting). There is nothing to fear about low doses of radiation. There is also nothing to fear about the science of health physics.

    • Joel Riddle says:

      I am a bit confused, Bob.

      You say here that “there is nothing to fear about low does of radiation”, yet don’t you also claim that LNT is true (meaning that the response to radiation is linear all the way down to a dose of zero, rather than there being a threshold dose below which no real harm occurs).

      Can those 2 positions be consistent?

      • Of course they can. I don’t fear driving, but I understand there is a risk of getting in an accident with each mile (pick a metric) I drive.

  2. donb says:

    Mr. Applebaum misses the whole point.

    Yes, radiation is used as cancer therapy, to directly kill the cancer cells, especially as they attempt to multiply.

    What Dr. Sakamoto addresses is something different — using low level whole body radiation to stimulate the body’s defenses against cancer. This level of radiation is too low to kill a substantial number of cancer cells directly as in conventional therapy.

  3. There is a very nice web site on dose response research at dose-response.org.

    The analogy used on this web site is exercise. No exercise is bad for you. Too much exercise is bad for you. Well selected exercise sessions stress the body such that when you recover from the exercise you are a little stronger.

    No radiation is bad for you. Too much radiation will kill you. Well selected radiation sessions can stress the immune system such that when you recover from the low radiation session you are a little stronger.

  4. Nope, I didn’t miss the point. I couldn’t find Sakamoto’s study on the Internet, and I’m not going to address it on the basis of slides (sort of like critizing a film on the basis of a few still shots). You and Rod are missing the whole point that even if the study was perfect, it would have nothing to do with LNT. I do wonder if Sakamoto received the necessary regulatory clearances for his non-conventional treatment, or if he’s guilty of medical malpractice.

    • jmdesp says:

      Bob, did you ever see the joint report that Tubiana and Aurengo have written in 2005 for the French Academy of Science and the French National Academy of Medecine that received an unanimous approval from both of this institutions ? (available in English here http://radscihealth.org/rsh/Papers/FrenchAcadsFinal07_04_05.pdf )

      Aurengo was head of nuclear medicine in a major Paris hospital, the one in France that specializes in treating thyroid neoplasm patients, that’s one of the departments in Europe that has treated the highest number of such patient. Tubiana on his part has a level of experience about radiation that is hard to resume in a few words, starting when he was an intern in Frédéric Joliot-Curie’s laboratory in 1957, including 300+ publications on the subject, head of nuclear medecine and then director during around 30 years at the Gustave-Roussy Institute (the biggest oncology health center in Europe).

      What they write in the report in nothing surprising with regard to many things that have been said here. But here it’s two prominent nuclear medecine and oncology specialist putting all their academic weight in support of the recent research showing there is no scientific basis for applying LNT for very low radiation doses.

      They wrote an additional paper that explores in details why BEIR VII does not reach the same conclusion as them http://radscihealth.org/rsh/docs/Correspondence/BEIRVII/TubianaAurengo5Oct05.pdf despites being based on almost exactly the same research results.
      And concluding that BEIR VII just simply selectively decides to not follow several of the research results it quotes to their ultimate conclusion, and that it’s end decision of still applying the LNT is just arbitrary.

    • jmdesp says:

      Well here a pointer Bob :
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2657505/ “Radiobiological Basis for Cancer Therapy by Total or Half-Body Irradiation”
      doi:10.1080/15401420490900254

      “TBI) with X-rays is generally considered to be a method of suppressing immunological responses in organisms [...] however, the smallest dose required to suppress immunological responses was not clear [...] On the contrary, it became clear that TBI of 10 or 15 cGy caused a rejection effect for the transplantation of tumor cells [...] experiments were designed to determine the mechanism of these effects, and the results are presented in this review.”

  5. John Chatelle says:

    Isn’t it Obvious?
    Highly mutated genetic material has mismatched DNA base pairs.
    Matched base pairs help lock in and stabilize the DNA Molecule while mismatched base pairs torque the DNA Phosphate coats.

    A little ionizing radiation within a range of energies and intensity will clean up torqued DNA, and leave intact DNA with well matched base pairs.

    It’s strange that a Dr (Caldicott) and an engineer would have so little faith in Natural Selection, one of the greatest discoveries of the historical age. I trust that DNA was selected via Natural Selection precisely because of the range of background radiation was sufficient to clean up somatic mutations.

    The technologies are now available (sequencing and reading DNA) to prove Dr. Kiyohiko Sakamoto correct. I think there should be a Nobel Prize available for the team that does.

    • jmdesp says:

      One little considered fact is that when life appeared on earth, there was no ozone layer and the number of radioactive isotopes in the crust was much higher (uranium was much less depleted than today, and had a much higher ratio of U235)

      As a result, the average natural radiation level was several grays per year.

  6. Daniel D. says:

    Dr. Sakamoto does not claim that LDR directly kills cells. His claim is that LDR stimulates immunological responses – see the second bullets on slides 4 and 13. Therefore, his assertion does dispute the LNT theory. Radiation used as a cancert therapy to directly kill cancer cells are used at levels KNOWN to be genotoxic. The only reference the above presentation gives to this type of therapy is to note that LDR therapy increases the efficacy of the high-level radiation.

    • See my other comment, but Sakamoto didn’t do the scientific research. He is quoting other earlier studies from the 1990’s, which I can’t find. And he’s presenting it at a 2012 meeting!. Cutting edge stuff!

  7. This is funnier than I first thought. I found the “study” of Sakamoto! (The next paragraph until end is from my blog which has embedded links for evidence):

    The “study” appears in the pseudo-science journal called “Dose-Response, An International Journal”. It is controlled by pseudo-scientist Edward Calabrese, whom I’ve criticized before, search the blog for other examples.

    Basically, the pro-hormesis folks can’t accept the criticisms they receive for doing faulty science, so they formed their own cult. The cult used to be called the International Hormesis Society, and the journal was called “Nonlinearity In Biology, Toxicology and Medicine”. They’ve attempted to be more covert and changed both the name of the journal and the society to “Dose-Response”, but their aim is still to propagandize hormesis.

    (This is similar to what the anti-evolutionary biology cult of Intelligent Design does. They have a Discovery Institute which publishes studies, books, etc. which seeks to look scientific, but isn’t.)

    Now on to the “study”. The study is not a study at all, but a pseudo-meta-analysis:

    The first bizarre thing is that it is dated 2004, and yet it’s being presented at a 2012 meeting (from Adams’ post)! The even more bizarre thing is that the first topic of the 2004 paper is about some 25 year old (as of 2004) mice experiments! That’s some cutting edge science there! What the author is engaging in for his “meta-analysis” is cherry-picking a few separate “studies”, spanning 25 years, and tying them together to promote the agenda of hormesis.

    Let jump down to the point that Adams is trying to make in his post, which is that whole or partial body irradiation reduced non-Hodgkins lymphoma, ipso facto no LNT. Of course, one has nothing to do with the other. These would be two different biological endpoints. This is similar to football….you can play and get in good cardiovascular health AND you can also suffer concussions, broken bones, bruising, etc.

    So even if the “study” showed the effect claimed, it is irrelevant to LNT. Also note that even the studies included in the pseudo-meta-analysis are from the 1990’s! I tried to look up some of those earlier studies but had no luck, I may try some more later. Lots of fixation of them though, by the same group of hormesis-cultists (Calabrese, Pollycove, etc.).

    It is 2012.

    • Brian Mays says:

      Wow, just amazing!

      The guy writes a review article, and you criticize it for being a review article. Really?! Are you serious?!

      Bob – I realize that you don’t have a research degree and you probably have no experience doing real research yourself, but do you have to demonstrate so clearly that you have no idea how scientific research and the scientific literature work?

      You’re now to the point of making yourself look even more foolish than usual.

  8. DV82XL says:

    Applebaum, you are the very worse advocate for LNT. What you are asserting is that even without reading the paper in question, it ether supports the hypothesis or has nothing to do with it. This is the sort of response one would expect from someone promoting any faith-based idea: unassailable belief that you are right without even considering any evidence that might turn out to be contrary. This is not practicing science; this is the priests from the Inquisition refusing to look into Galileo’s telescope because whatever they might see in it contrary to doctrine must perforce be wrong.

    Those of us that oppose LNT are actually rather lucky to have you around as you constantly illustrate just how intellectually bankrupt the whole idea is and how flimsy the arguments that support it are.

    R. Gauthier

    • R. Gauthier – you are wrong again.

      • DV82XL says:

        Not wrong, but premature. I posted before yours showed up, making this an error caused by the irritating delay that occurs on this site.

        But I will note that it is typical that you would try to leverage this error not having anything of real note to bring to the conversation.

  9. Bob Applebaum says:

    I am not criticizing the guy for writing a review article. I am criticizing the quality of it and him intentionally having it published in a non-scientific journal. And I am criticizing Rod’s statement which inferred it was Sakamoto’s work: “The session organizers thought that his work on using whole body and half body radiation treatments to cure cancer and prevent recurrence was important enough…”. It wasn’t his work. I have a very good understanding of how science and he scientific literature works. I also have a very good understanding of how pseudo-science and the pseudo-scientific literature works.

  10. I have a lot of experience doing research (not published for intellectually property reasons). I also understand how science and the scientific literature work as well as pseudo-science and pseudo-scientific literature trying to masquerade as science. I am not criticizing the guy for writing a review article. I am criticizing the shoddy quality of it. I am criticizing his deliberate publication in a pseudo-science journal. And I’m criticizing Rod for writing: “The session organizers thought that his work on using whole body and half body radiation treatments to cure cancer and prevent recurrence was important enough….”. It wasn’t HIS work! There is no “mounting evidence that LNT is wrong”….the cultists have been saying that for decades, just like the creationists (a.k.a IDiots) have been saying there is mounting evidence that evolutionary biology is wrong. Nope.

  11. Mr. Mays:

    Whether I did research or not is a distraction. I haven’t been to the Moon, but I know facts about it. I have done a lot of research (not published, for intellectual property reasons), but it’s irrelevant. That’s how you cultists defend yourselves…credentials, “you haven’t done research”, conspriacy theories, etc. I did not criticize the guy for doing a review article. I criticize its quality (so little over 25 years and only the hormesis side?). I criticize its deliberate publication in a non-science journal. I criticize either him or Rod for making it seem like it was his work: “The session organizers thought that his work on using whole body and half body radiation treatments to cure cancer and prevent recurrence was important enough to share with the meeting attendees…”. And I criticize them both for not understanding that it has nothing to do with LNT.

    • Brian Mays says:

      Mr. Mays:

      Actually, it’s Dr. Mays. Thank you very much. I realize that you enjoy insulting those who know more than you do — a common habit of small minds, I’ve noticed — but please, at least have the decency to use the proper term of address for those you endeavor to correspond with online. In other words, please call me either “Brian” or “Dr. Mays” — thanks.

      I did not criticize the guy for doing a review article.

      The hell you didn’t! Here are your exact words:

      The study is not a study at all, but a pseudo-meta-analysis:

      For those of us who actually are familiar with real research, the proper term for a paper such as this is a review article. The paper refers to itself as such several times in the text.

      Guess you didn’t read it too carefully, did you?

      It appears that you don’t even know what a real “meta-analysis” is. Please don’t insult us with your gobbledygook. Some of us actually know what these terms mean, and you, Mr. Applebaum, are only displaying your ignorance every time you misuse them. Please stop.

      I criticize its quality (so little over 25 years and only the hormesis side?).

      You never addressed even one thing in the paper. Please don’t make me laugh!

      As for your idiotic claims that “Sakamoto didn’t do the scientific research,” if you had actually read the review article, you would know that he cites seven articles of which he is either the primary author or a co-author. Sure, this is a small fraction of the papers referenced in the article, but that is to be expected in a review article. Once again, your ignorance of how science is done is obvious.

      I criticize its deliberate publication in a non-science journal

      A non-science journal? Oh please. The next thing we know you’ll be telling us that the University of Massachusetts is not an accredited university or that its School of Public Health is not a school of public health. (Hint: Now’s your chance. Go for it!)

      I guess we have your word for it. Heh … Could you be more silly?

      You’re like the idiot anti-nukes who claim that Nuclear Science and Technology is not a valid scientific journal, because the journal’s only purpose is to cover the latest research in nuclear science and technology.

      I criticize them both for not understanding that it has nothing to do with LNT.

      Well, that is your dogma. If you want to make that point, you had better put more effort into it. Nobody here, as far as I can tell, is buying your BS. I certainly am not, Mr. Applebaum.

      Sorry about many posts … website acting erractically.

      That’s not the only thing that is acting “erractically” [sic]. Perhaps some sleep will do you some good.

      • jmdesp says:

        Some of the work published in “dose-responses” *is* of poor quality.

        OTOH other journals also tend to print very poor papers those days. The recent “bitewings radiation effect” paper was not even internally consistent, and denying even LNT by reporting an effect in some case almost one million time stronger than LNT.

  12. Sorry about many posts…website acting erractically.

  13. Robert Margolis says:

    I have found this EPRI report useful in my discussions on the low-dose issue:

    http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?Abstract_id=000000000001019227

    It compares the BEIR and French Academy of Medicine reports along with 200 studies on the low-dose issue. While EPRI does not call for an immediate rejection of LNT, the model is clearly an approximation and should be treated as such. I have read the BEIR reports and they refer to LNT as an hypothesis. We regulate other materials and effects using LNT (e.g., lead and mercury exposure) so radiation is not that special of a case. And I stress that point in my discussions as well.

  14. Ian Soutar says:

    I have collected as much material as I could about Radiation Hormesis on the site above. The most noteable thing I discovered is that low level radiation used to boost immunity and treat arthritis has been in use in Europe, Asia and Russia for about 3000 years.

    I am using it myself for relief from arthritis and to prevent the likelyhood of the occurance of cancer. Very effective for arthritis … I am using radon water. Uranium glass beads from the local childrens bead shop are being used to prevent cancer and for decorative jewellery.

    Ian Soutar
    Microsec R&D Inc.
    http://microsec.net

  15. Rob Andrews says:

    Questions
    Can someone explain “LNT” and describe the “safe level of radiation” around Fukushima?
    (e.g. How much of the current exclusion zone could be recovered?
    Does this mean that a 1k radius is ok or is it more like 10K?
    Clearly the radiation at the plant basement far exceeds “safe” level?)

    There were mentions in the report of moving people as many as 4 times to avoid “high” radiation, is this good news for them?

    It would be great to hear some good news for a change

    • Rod Adams says:

      @Rob Andrews

      You might want to read Ted Rockwell’s guest post titled Let the People of Fukushima Go Home and Get Back to Work.

      http://atomicinsights.com/2011/12/let-the-people-of-fukushima-go-home-and-get-back-to-work.html

      By all means, everyone should stay out of the basement of the damaged power plants – except for possibly very short, well monitored inspection visits.

      Everyone who is not a radiation trained nuclear worker should stay outside of the plant gates.

      Otherwise, essentially all of the evacuated area should be repopulated as soon as reasonably achievable. (There is a lot of damaged infrastructure that needs to be fixed first.)

    • quokka says:

      Here is an interesting way of looking at it:

      https://sites.google.com/site/zwittsfukushima/

      The author shows that only in a corridor north west of the plant would the projected full 80 year life time cumulative dose for an individual exceed that of a person living in Cornwall in the UK. The assumptions are close to the 20 mSv per year dose that often seems to be quoted as an inital limit after a nuclear accident.

      The area is also projected to shrink fairly rapidly over the first few years, presumably as Cs-134 decays away.

      In general, I think comparison to natural exposure in other parts of the world in a good means to ally unreasonable fears regardless of the validity of LNT. Especially as controversy over LNT is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon even if it is a bit shaky.

  16. David says:

    Bob

    The quality of your comments encourages me to check out the ID movement. Or I guess I should just trust you on the settled science….

    If you have a real and specific criticism of his conclusions why not just state the area? Gains a lot more weight with me when a person actually debates

  17. Brian Mays says:

    David – Of course, Bob’s reference to the “ID movement” was intended to be an insult to anyone who has not completely rejected the idea of radiation hormesis or non-linearity in dose-response from exposure to radiation.

    See, Bob realizes that his arguments are so weak that he has to rely on comparing his opponents in the debate to other groups with dubious reputations in certain circles. The goal is to evoke an emotional response so as to make up for the lack of intellectual rigor. This tactic, taken to the extreme, results in Godwin’s Law. The main difference of Bob’s technique is that it doesn’t directly involve anyone from Germany. Although, he does seem to like to use the term “denier,” which has direct Nazi references.

    • David says:

      Brian,

      Bob is battling for a faith. At least the ID movement can show design and engineering in the systems they are looking at with the argument being over the way in which the design came about.

      Bob can only tell us that he has faith that if it was possible to do a large enough experiment that it would show the damage predicted among 5 or 6 people out of hundreds of thousands exposed. When your prediction cannot be distinguished from a background effect – your prediction is a faith – not even a hypothesis.

      At the same time Bob ignores studies that would directly answer his questions as to the viability of LNT. Shipyard worker / and Apartment dweller (Taiwan) exposure styles and rates much more closely match the types of questions asked about Fukushima and Nuclear power plant workers than the explosion of a bomb during WWII.

  18. Ian Soutar says:

    Hi to the Group … thanks for great paper by
    Dr. Kiyohiko Sakamoto – Low Dose Radiation Used as Cancer Treatment

    I am actually an electronic product inventor who, a year ago, designed a geiger counter to sell on the company website. Upon investigating the safety of uranium glass beads to ship out with the units I stumbled across Dr. T D Luckey’s work summarizing 100 years of research on low dose radiation published in 1982 approximately. Later I discovered that Europe, Asia and Russia have been using low level radiation for about 3000 years in the treatment of arthritis and immune disorders. German medical authorities hand out prescriptions for arthritis suffers to go to radon rich hot springs for healing.

    The Greek Island of Ikaria has been famous for it healing and radioactive radium/radon rich hot spring since ancient Greek times and earlier. They have the most radioactive natural hot spring in Europe which is widely used by the residents of the island. The Island is being studied by scientists in Europe because 1/3 of the population is over the age of 90 and dancing! I kid you not … a large medical study is underway right now.

    Look for Real Science
    For those that still believe a danger to low level radiation it would be worthwhile to study the work of T D Luckey who summarized all the research from 1880 to 1980 … 100 years of research with not one experiment showing a danger to humans from low level radiation!

    I notice that all the LNT supporters, when asked, cannot supply even one research paper showing a danger from low level radiation. LNT is not a theory, but is only a hypothesis. I have won 3 free lunches at the University of Victoria from LNT supporters who were sure there were “thousands of papers” showing a danger. I told them to meet me the later in the week when they found the LNT supporting research. The LNT guys bought me lunch in every case after failing to find even one paper! Is there someone out there who can find even one paper supportive of LNT that is also good science?

    As a child I played in the Ranwick Uranium mine near Sault Ste Marie Canada. 4 of us played with radioactive rocks we collected using one of our Dad’s geiger counters. We collected and carried in our pockets and packs all the hottest rocks. We all kept them under our pillows from the age of about 9 to 12 to keep away “bad dreams” … it was a poor theory and we still got bad dreams. Upon phoning my buddies about 50 years later I was surprised to learn that none of us got cancer and in fact we were all remarkably healthy.

    So … if someone wants to support LNT … please do not argue that “everyone believes in LNT”. The LNT is a left over Cold War piece of propaganda. If you do support LNT please supply evidence other than simple cultural popularity! There has been widespread consensus on the flatness of the earth too historically. But a “widely believed” theory is not a scientific theory.

    Hormesis on the other hand is very well supported experimentally. High School kids have done experiments with radiation hormesis using uranium glass beads that can be found in most bead stores. There is a century of science to support it. LNT supporters need to do the experiments and not talk in circles about their beliefs. Can we get back to science please.

    Personally I am using the European radon therapy for my arthritis. I wish someone had alerted me to this approach 40 years ago. I have been suffering from arthritis since I was 20 and low level radiation in the last year has worked wonders. No wonder LDR has been popular for 3000 years. In addition all my allergies vanished as soon as I started the therapy.

    I am also wearing some uranium glass jewellery at all times. There are about 100 folk who report by email that they are also doing the same thing and almost all report a remarkable absence of colds and flu. This was the first winter in my life that I never got a cold or flu. I used to have a poor immune system before wearing beads.

    It is a shame that so many folk were evacuated from Fukushima. I get a yearly dose of 100 millisievert/year every year, just to stay healthy and active at the age of 63. Those poor people were evacuated because they might accumulate as much as 20 millisievert/year. I would have been unhappy with such a low exposure!

    It is time to wake up and look at science and not cultural beliefs. LNT does not even qualify as a theory with some supporting evidence. There is no supporting evidence as far as I have ever seen.

    Ian Soutar
    Microsec R&D Inc.
    Vancouver Island.

    • David says:

      Ian,

      Flat earth is a pejorative dreamed up in the 1800’s as a slam against Christians. CS Lewis points out that since the time of the early Greeks everyone has known the earth was round and it’s size fairly closely. They did not know the size of the oceans until we circumnavigated the world.

      • Ian Soutar says:

        My understanding in fact is almost the same, except that the ancient greek derivation was forgotten for 1000 years. Even in the time of Christopher Columbus there were flat earthers! But of course the nature of many strange beliefs remain “truths” for thousands of years generally. My example can be replaced with any other strange belief of science. For thousands of years the earth was the centre of the universe is another “truth”

        Scientists as a group behave predictably, just like all cultural groups, as seen through the insights of anthropology and history.

        ICrazy Theory of LNT Origins …

        It appears that LNT is a belief structure which has its foundation in the shock of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Shortly after that Herman Muller (nobel prise 1946) lied about his work with x rays. He found quite surprisingly in the 2 years before winning his award his research went sideways … he reached the hormetic low level radiation zone for x rays. He got less mutations at low doses of x rays than would occur with no x ray radiation at all! At the time of his acceptance speech (to prevent the proliferation of the A bomb) he stated that in all his years of research he found no safe level of radiation! He lied in a major scientific event. This started the belief.

        Muller’s deception was discovered by the toxicologist Edward Calabrese by studying Mullers personal correspondence. The deception is discussed in Mullers personal letters and the low dose results of his lab work are still available. Edward Calabrese wrote about this last year in 2011. It can be found all over the internet and you can read his original investigation.

        My theory is that this lie was a seed that led to the 1958 – 1959 crafting of the LNT Hypothesis … which is what it was and remains. I understand that Muller worked on the committee. Further historical discoveries will be interesting to uncover.

        That is my take on it … would be delighted to know more about that point in history. This would make a great topic for Anthropology and History papers.

        My feeling remains that in fact radiation hormesis is very well demonstrated with both people, animals and plants. I can easily find over 3000 papers to support it. I have not yet found one LNT supporting paper that did not seem to be doctored.

        My skepticism of LNT is most strongly seen by radon gas in basements. With no experiments in basements LNT supporting theorists predicted dangers by extrapolating down with a ruler from high mine worker exposures (known to cause cancer) down to basement levels which are 5 orders of magnitude down. That is bad science … everyone knows you cannot extend a line and believe the result! Basic facts lead one to throw out LNT for Radon because Colorado has the highest basement Radon levels and also has one of the lowest incidence of lung cancer in the USA.

        How did the atomic science community get into this messy world of unfounded beliefs?

        If I am completely wrong please send some links to real science supporting LNT. Real science and not references to widely held beliefs. Is there any science at all to support LNT ?? Maybe someone can offer a link to a study with a discussion?

        Ian Soutar
        Microsec R&D Inc.
        Vancouver Island.
        Canada.

    • Rod Adams says:

      Ian – may I have your permission to elevate your comment to a guest post?

  19. gallopingcamel says:

    Ian Soutar says:
    “It is a shame that so many folk were evacuated from Fukushima. I get a yearly dose of 100 millisievert/year every year, just to stay healthy and active at the age of 63. Those poor people were evacuated because they might accumulate as much as 20 millisievert/year. I would have been unhappy with such a low exposure!”

    For many years I was responsible for radiation safety at a high radiation facility in North Carolina. Under state regulations (NC “Yellow Book”) radiation workers were limited to 5 REM/year; I believe that is 50 mSv in the new units. I have heard that the corresponding limit for radiation workers in Japan is 20 mSv.

    It seems that you think you are deliberately exposing yourself to a dose greater than that permitted for radiation workers in many jurisdictions.

    May I humbly suggest that you are receiving essentially no radiation at all from your Uranium doped beads. The benefits you claim cannot be the result of radiation unless you implanted the beads inside your body. You are like the people in double blind medical trials who enjoy benefits even though they received the placebo.

    Natural Uranium has two main isotopes. U238 is an alpha emitter and U235 has a complex decay chain with alphas and betas. Neither isotope produces anything that can penetrate a sheet of paper let alone your epidermis. Uranium is only dangerous if inhaled or ingested.

    I would love to believe your fairy tale as my arthritis has become so severe that I have had to give up playing golf. While I agree with you when you say that the radiation around Fukushima is beneficial, my BS detector rejects your Uranium beads unless they contain U232 or other isotopes that produce penetrating radiation.

  20. Ian Soutar says:

    Hey … I am only describing what works for me. If you feel it would not work for you I would not try it. You would even miss the placebo effect!

    Ian

  21. Ian Soutar says:

    I should have followed with the calculations for uranium glass bead exposure:

    The uranium glass jewellery that I wear puts out as measured 11 microsievert/hour. It is not alpha because the uranium is within the glass. They are worn in different locations at times, sometimes as a necklace or bracelet.

    11 microsievert/hour times 24 times 365 works out to about 97 millisievert / year.

    Now, although it is true that much of the energy is shallow, if you do some research on hormesis you will find that there is no need for deep penetration at all. Even if the absorbed energy is 1/4 of this it will still be beneficial. I found the beads to be better for immunity improvement rather than arthritis.

    Now I must admit that internal radiation is more effective for arthritis … so I have a radon generator and often drink radon water before bed. This makes a big difference for many people as is seen in Polish and German spa studies.

    Sorry if I misled about the beads and arthritis … the radon gas and the internal exposure that you get seems to work. If it is a placebo effect … I will not delve into this since I do have a very effective treatment and I do consider the placebo effect to be a valid healing modality. Radon spas which are popular throughout the world are found to be remarkably effective at long term analgesia. A spa treatment over 1 week can provide for up to 6 months of pain reduction for arthritis.

    Hormesis is really proven only to do two things: normalize the immune system and as a result we get two advantages of both reduced infections and reduced cancers. The pain relief is a different effect. It has been proven to work but the mechanism is unknown. Much like the actions of aspirin which are not fully understood either.

    I would be interested in knowing an alternative way to calculate exposure? It would be useful to get a second evaluation. Working from beads that put out 11 uSv/hour in contact … what would the yearly dose be?

    Thanks
    Ian Soutar
    Microsec R&D Inc.
    Vancouver Island.

    • Mike Greaves says:

      Ian,
      I think that some of us find your self dosimetry a little suspect. U glass contains very little U – it’s usually just at the level of an optical dopant – generally just a few percent. But it can apparently be much higher… U is a really weak gamma source. I assume that the 11 uSv/hr reading is a dose estimate function from your own Geiger counter design? It seems that could be right if the glass was ~20+% U… 11 uSv/hr at the bead surface won’t be that high in much of your tissue, though. I can’t see it amounting to much more than 1 to a few mSv/yr total body, not 100 mSv/yr…

      How strong is your “radon water”? Do you have a calibrated detector that can measure the alpha activity in a liquid sample? Can you tell us the activity of the radium source in the generator (or at least what the seller claimed it to be)? I assume that it’s an antique unit?

      The radon alpha dose could be much bigger than those little beads are giving you. Do you have any firm idea how much that radon water is giving you?

      Mike Greaves

  22. gallopingcamel says:

    @Ian Soutar,
    “The uranium glass jewellery that I wear puts out as measured 11 microsievert/hour. It is not alpha because the uranium is within the glass. They are worn in different locations at times, sometimes as a necklace or bracelet.”

    Now I am begining to take you seriously. If someone was able to measure the dose using conventional dosimetry then there is something else present other than Uranium as you imply with the above statement. That is quite likely depending on the where the Uranium came from and how it was processed.

    Did you measure the 11 micro-Sieverts/hour yourself or are you relying on someone else’s measurements? If the latter I can verify the measurements for you. Although I retired ten years ago I still have access to sensitive equipment for measuring gammas and neutrons. I may also be able to come up with a mass spectromenter analysis that will quantify other isotopes that are present.

    Prior to retirement I was responsible for personnel protection and radiation safety affecting a team of 35 people. I can measure what is being emitted from the beads and make an estimate of the whole body dose and local dose they can deliver.

    You don’t have to sell me on radiation hormesis. Most of the studies I am aware of involve lively gamma emitters such as Co60. Having worked in the Republic of China for many years this is one of my favorites:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/

  23. Ian Soutar says:

    I have a collection of antique uranium glass dishes from various eras and they all put out the same strength of field … in a large dish you would read (in contact or within 1mm) 7 to 9 microsievet/hour. So these beads are just run of the mill radioactive in a way that matches my other antique glass items. These however are made in the Czech Republic using depleted uranium … my antiques are natural uranium.

    I have my own design of geiger instrument and we compared to a freshly calibrated geiger counter at the University of Victoria. The higher quality professional pancake type cell unit could read alpha but the other unit could not. Both read the same reading exactly because the beads trap all the alpha (or almost all) inside. Actually I have a sample set up to look at in the electron microscope … curious to see what damage is done by the alpha particles.

    Thanks for your offer to look at other isotopes in there. However I accept the simple measurements that we have as being good enough. If you are interested in looking at them I would be happy to send you some to look at?

    Also someone asked about the radon water. The radon water is quite weak … about 100 times weaker than in most radon Hot Spring Spas in Europe. I have not yet had it analyzed but am seen benefits. So my next step will be to analyze the brewed water. It is a small piece of carnotite ore on a string that is left in a gallon of water overnight. Until I get an analysis on the water I will not brew it any longer or add more ore to the gallon jug. Of course this is the way radon gets into ground water … usually from the uranium ore fields. The revigator was something along the same lines … much stronger than my rig. Even the revigator could never come close to the Radon Hot Spring Spas in Austria, Greece, Germany or Japan.

    So all I know at this point is that I am using a minimal, possibly ineffective dose. But I am getting positive results. Might be placebo … but that works too. But until I get the water analysed I will keep it weak.

    I have some estimates of the Revigator radon strength. It has been used as a standard university source for classroom work on radon. It is considered to be an excellent source. If anyone is interested I can find the numbers.

    Now I am at a loss to figure out how to analyse for radon. Is there such a service?

    Ian Soutar
    Microsec R&D Inc.

  24. Ian says:

    GallopingCamel

    I certainly would appreciate help with dosimetry. The concept of dosimetry is complicated by hormesis. If the rate is low the DNA errors will be repaired quicker than they are created. As a result low rates do no really accumulated at all. So it is difficult to give a number to in light of this approach.

    However I recommend that we wait until Rod moves this conversation to a new spot. Not sure where yet.

    Ian Soutar

  25. Ian Soutar says:

    Gallopingcamel

    Thanks for your assistance … I certainly could use some help with dosimetry. I suggest we hold off on the conversation since Rod is planning to move this conversation to a different spot.

    Ian Soutar

  26. Ian Soutar says:

    Attention Rod

    If you are in charge of the site … can I request the removal of one sentence.

    You can email me at … isoutar@gmail.com

    Thanks
    Ian Soutar

  27. gallopingcamel says:

    @Ian Soutar,
    “I have my own design of geiger instrument and we compared to a freshly calibrated geiger counter at the University of Victoria.”

    This says you are doing the measurements yourself using conventional dosimetry so the radiation has to penetrate >0.2 mm of metal or >0.5 mm of glass. Alphas or betas from Uranium isotopes won’t have enough energy to penetrate this and trigger your detector so you are probably measuring gammas from something other than Uranium.

    This is getting interesting as I have tried all kinds of treatments for my arthritis. The one I liked best was the ten raisins soaked in Vodka per day. Absolutely no effect on the arthritis but quite tasty!

    I hope Rod will find this interesting enough to justify a new thread.

    • Ian Soutar says:

      Rod has recommended moving this to a new thread and asked me permission. Iit Can you contact him … I have agreed it is a good idea but he may be waiting for additional feedback to find out whether or not it is of general interest. I think there should be a plain Radiation Hormesis thread for sharing research papers and a Radiation Hormesis Experiments thread for discussions of experimentents we all can do and report on.

      Uranium glass radiation strength over 1 century
      ************************************************************
      Uranium glass beads always put out gamma and beta. The glass is thin enough on my geiger for beta. I have compared many sources of uranium glass because I have a dishes collection we use in the kitchen. All put out between 3 and 9 uSv/hour, with most uranium glass being 7 uSv/hour. The uranium concentration is almost exactly 2% for glass because that is the doping value that is the most fluorescent under UV light. Modern glass is always 2% uranium. Just for interest I have not seen a difference in radioactivity between my glass from 1890 to 1940 vs glass from 1970 which used depleted uranium.

      As far as the geiger counter goes the readings still average 7 uSv/hour. Some bead clusters can reach 11 uSv/hour, especially beads from the Czech Republic. I think they must be using 2.5 – 3 % uranium at a guess. According to Dr. T D Luckey, the ideal source is 11 uSv/hour which would add up to a local exposure of 100 uSv/year. It is true it is not 100 uSv/year to the whole body … just part of the body near the beads … but this appears to be plenty strong enough to get hormesis.
      Penetration Strength As Measured Through Hand
      ***************************************************************
      I will do a reading right now … the results are surprising …

      Background radiation in my living room is 0.1 uSv/hour

      I put a 8 uSv / hour set of 12 1cm beads in my hand and measure what penetrates the back of the hand … 0.2 uSv/hour. Correcting for background that is 0.2 – 0.1 (background) = 0.1 uSv/hour.

      I have a 180 uSv/hour source which is carnotite ore which has been lacquered to block alpha. This is a rock used by the medicine man group in Colorado for special healing. I have used it to treat an infection in my foot from stepping on glass. That makes it analogous to the glass beads which also do not emit alpha. Through my hand I measured 2.2 uSv/hour. That is 2.1 correcting for background. Normally I keep it on the shelf … too strong to carry.

      Attenuation in both cases is similar …

      Bead attenuation by hand is 8 / 0.1 or a factor of 80.

      Uranium ore attenuation by hand is 180 / 2.1 or a factor of 85.7

      So you can see that not much penetrates but some does, approximately 1/80th of the energy reaches through 2.5 cm of bone and skin.

      I recommend reading the website I created called http://radiation-hormesis.com. It was built following the advice of T D Luckey who kindly commented on the ideas as I was building it. Several researchers well known in the field contributed papers which are near the end of the website. Jerry Cuttler modified the diagram originally published by Dr. Luckey in 1982 or so which gave us a diagramatic reference basis for designing the hormesis exposure.

      Ian Soutar
      Microsec R&D Inc.
      Vancouver Island
      Canada.

  28. Ian Soutar says:

    More data on the above experiment.

    At the University of Victoria we used xray fluorescence analysis to check the purity of the uranium glass a few weeks ago. There was nothing detectable besides uranium.

    So I cannot explain the penetration …

    Ian Soutar

    • Rod Adams says:

      Didn’t Marie Curie win a Nobel Prize partially as a result of finding that uranium included a tiny, but predictable portion of radium in its daughter products?

      • jmdesp says:

        Yes, you will expect all the daughter products of the 238U decay chain to be present together with geological uranium, and many of them,11 actually, emit beta as can be seen here :
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain#Radium_series_.28also_known_as_uranium_series.29
        Most of them have a lifespan which is excessively short compared to 238U, so the amount is certainly hard to detect, but the becquerel activity of each of them will be exactly the same as the one of 238U (I’ll leave it as an exercise to understand why ;-) )
        The main question is if the production process has kept the daughter product or not.
        Even if it’s not the case, you will see the first 3 one, the short lifespan regenerates them constantly. But 5 other will be there only if the radium stayed, and the last 3 only if the lead stayed.

  29. Ian Soutar says:

    New Topic Area Needed
    *******************************

    Since you are commenting Rod … can we move this to a new discussion area for an ongoing discussion of hormesis from a practical point of view? I am hoping for some dedicated amateur scientists to help out. The professional researchers often have their hands tied when it comes to human experimentation. But this stuff is harmless as far as the science we have all seen shows. Dr. T D Luckey established the point that there are no experiments in 100 years of research showing a danger for these low level uranium sources in his book from 1982 when he summarized all the research from 1880 to 1980 … this area is very very heavily researched. I have no idea where LNT supporters get the idea that nothing is known!

    Good point about Marie Currie … that is certainly true of the older uranium glass since it was just mineral uranium (oxide) or yellowcake and may have radium. The modern beads I wear are made from depleted uranium. You might know if it could contain radium too?

    T D Luckey in the 1980s was considered radical because he suggested using nuclear waste for healthy exposure. That is exactly what we are doing when we use modern uranium glass beads. Boyd Art Glass and Mosser Glass companies, both of Ohio are the major USA manufacturers today. i have talked with the owner of Boyd in Ohio … he is making Victorian pressed glass. At the age of 70, some 30 years ago he started the company based on a Victorian plant that had been closed for 50 years. It had lots of uranium oxide left over so he made lots of uranium glass until he ran out of yellowcake. He ordered more in the form of depleted uranium and most if not all glass today is made from atomic waste leftover depleted uranium!

    I just discovered what is producing gamma. The transmutation gives off gamma rays each time a daughter product is produced.

    Relevant Link …
    http://ipims.com/data/fe11/G4406.asp?UserID=&Code=30001

    To quote the relevant part of the article …
    Uranium 235, uranium 238, and thorium 232 all decay to stable lead isotopes, via a long chain of daughter products. An isotope of potassium, K40, decays to argon, and gives off a gamma ray in the process.

    Radioactive Sources of Gamma from Uranium and Thorium
    ****************************************************************************
    It should be noted that each type of decay is characterized by a gamma ray of a specific energy (wavelength), and the frequency of occurrence for each decay energy is different. Potassium-40 emits gamma-rays with one single radiation energy (1.46 MeV), whereas the U-Ra and Th series display a wide range of energies. The radiation intensity (gamma photons per gram per second) is:

    Just like you say Rod … uranium to radon transformation does it!

    · 2600 for Uranium => Radium

    · 12000 for Th

    · 3 for K40

    So I guess my measurements from an hour ago make sense for uranium glass beads. I also did not know that gamma was so prevalent.

    Ian Soutar

  30. gallopingcamel says:

    @Ian Soutar
    “Relevant Link …
    http://ipims.com/data/fe11/G4406.asp?UserID=&Code=30001

    I am not fond of bananas, so radiation hormesis via K40 does not appeal. Gamma rays from beads sounds much better.

    While alphas and betas from beads containing Thorium or Uranium will be very hard to detect, gammas from decay products should be easy to detect as they are much more penetrating than X-rays.

    If the radiation you are detecting is coming from daughter products of Uranium decay they are constantly being renewed. Given that U238 has a half life of billions of years and U235 has a half life of 700 million years it would be reasonable to expect that the gamma activity should be constant for millions of years.

    The evidence for radiation hormesis mostly relies on gamma radiation as in the Taiwan apartments. Why this should reduce the incidence of cancers by a factor of 30:1 is beyond my pay grade.

    However, I can suggest a mechanism that might explain how gamma radiation might relieve arthritis. There are over 100 different kinds of arthritis so what works for you may not work for me, so even if I am right there is no guaranee that all arthritis sufferers will benefit.

    My arthritis results from the thinning of cartilage brought about by wear and tear. I used to be 6′ 2″ tall but I have already lost 1″ in height. In my case extreme physical exercise was the cause. My doctor compares me to a truck with bald tyres. I have some miles left but do I want to keep going at my preferred rate or do I want to slow down so the joints will last longer?

    I chose to slow down and thereby delayed the threatened knee and hip replacement surgery by ten years (so far). What I need is something that will stimulate my body’s ability to repair cartilage. Naturally one grasps at straws and you try anything and everything that charlatans promote. Condroitin? MSM? Vodka & raisins? And on and on…… None of these things worked for me but I am still a sucker for the next “miracle”.

    Exposure to UV light destroys cells in one’s skin. The body fights back in various ways. More vitamin “D” and melaninin is produced. If the UV dose is not excessive the consequences for a person’s health can be positive. How else can one explain “Tanning Salons”?

    We know that an acute dose of 5 Sieverts of gamma radiation (LD50) will cause death within a few weeks for 50% of individuals exposed but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that lower doses benefit one’s health. I suggest that low doses of gammas stimulate one’s body to produce substances that repair the damage done by radiation. Very little research is going on into this possiblity thanks to the powerful Greybeards who are blind to anything other than LNT.

  31. Ian Soutar says:

    GallopingCamel since you are sincerely looking for an arthritis cure and I am getting to be an old timer at 63 and also always looking at cures for arthritis. I have had mine since the age of 20.

    It burns me up that my doctors (outside of Europe and Asia) never recommended radon but it really does work. I do three things that have proven to be of great benefit. I have given up each of them a number of times through forgetfulness … and had to start back because I was quickly becoming disabled again.

    1/ I have a small piece of carnotite ore about the size of the square part of a chopstick about 2 centimeters long. It puts out 25 microsievert/hour or 2.5 millirem/hour. I put it in 3 liters of water overnight and drink 1.5 liters of radon water the next day. The rest is saved for the bathtub.

    Meanwhile I have a 1920 Revigator sitting by the bathtub. This device is lined with Carnotite ore inside … making radon 24/7. I brew 2 gallons of water for 3 or 4 days and add in the extra drinking water generated above each day. Then on the 4th day I make a hot bath cooled exclusively with radon water. This is a very effective remedy for the pain of arthritis and it seems to lower the intensity of the attacks … when mine starts to get worse. It is now stable.

    2/ I drink V8 vegetable juice Motts Low Sodium in fact with 2 teaspoons of organic Tumeric … which is a powerful anti inflamitory and it stops arthritis from getting worse and kills pain like aspirin. Gentle on the stomach with no side effects at all. There are many other advantages. Improves immunity.

    3/ Very important if you have arthritis. Professional athletes are given this if they injure themselves to make sure the joint stays undamaged. It is Glucosamine HCL … but NOT Glucosamine Sulphate. It is not obvious in Canada from the packaging but the HCL is very high in sodium … bad for high blood pressure.

    Glucosamine HCL is salt free … 2 grams a day will build more lubrication in the joints to protect them from further damage. Just like an old hinge will work if enough grease can be squeased into it.

    There are studies showing Glucosamine totally ineffective … but it is used widely in sports and animal medicine. These studies were funded by companies offering expensive arthritis drugs.

    With the above 3 things plus also I wear 11 uSv/hour necklace or bracelet depending on the situation. For example if arthritis was bad in one hand i wear the bracelet on that wrist. The gamma rays cause analgesia apparently. I have not seen an explanation but have felt the pain relief … as has my wife. That 11 uSv/hour necklace is from the Czech Republic … a uranium glass necklace of opaque glass that glows very brightly under UV light. It was a hit with Czech hippies in 1965 … a very popular and inexpensive necklace, encouraged as a way to dispose of depleted uranium!
    I love recycling …

    We also have a radioactive pad sent as a gift from Jay Guttierez, the medicine man from Colorado. It is about 8 inches square, of double layer plastic sealed and contains carnotite ore powder mixed other uranium ores. They are blended until the pack gives off 20 uSv/hour. Its function is pain relief. If you injure yourself you get out the pad and it will stop the pain of a minor injury. Takes about 10 minutes.

    This also has been useful for arthritis attacks. But I have abandoned it except for emergency pain. Because if you use it all the time you are so numbed out you will further injure yourself. Just like can happen with codeine pain killers.

    So … with that multi dimensional approach I am off dancing to rock music many weekends. First time in a decade and a half.

    Radiation is my friend and I embrace it for healing. This is an important tool to kill pain. Even if it were found to be dangerous it would be worth it to me. Of course it is an ancient healing tool, popular since ancient Greek times and earlier.

    It is tragic that our culture is radio-phobic.

    Ian Soutar
    Microsec R&D Inc.
    Vancouver Island
    Canada
    http://microsec.net

  32. Ian Soutar says:

    Anyone else who is doing some experimentation with hormesis, I would be interested in talking about it. Below are some estimates of the radioactivity of uranium glass jewellery beads.

    Uranium glass jewellery is available worldwide and is a very reliable and very low level source that puts out between 1 and 10 microSv/hour. Modern uranium glass is 2% and a 1 cm diameter bead puts out 1 uSv/hour. A full set of beads will only radiate 10 uSv/hour leading to a yearly exposure which will not exceed 97 millisievert/year. 100 mSv/year is considered to be an ideal value for maximum biopositive effects. Most of these beads are from the Czech republic and are now made from depleted uranium waste. It is a recycling method for nuclear fuel which is now cheaper than natural mineral uranium sources for the colouration of glass.

    I am especially interested in promoting high school science fair research which involves plants and small animals. Most places in Canada you can find uranium glass jewellery beads in bead and craft stores. This makes high school experimentation easy and there is no need to seek registered radiation sources. It also is an easy tool to test radiation hormesis for yourself on your own body since they are normally used for jewellery.

    Please email me at isoutar at microsec.net as well as at isoutar at gmail.com. Best to use both addresses at once.

    Ian Soutar
    Microsec R&D Inc.

  33. Ian Soutar says:

    Thanks for the many constructive comments on radiation hormesis. It is an interesting and most basic method to keep healthy. Used for 3000 years in traditional European and Asian medicine through their natural hot spring therapy for arthritis (radon gas therapy). This ancient method popular since ancient Greece is becoming known in North America.