Spokesperson for the Supp. Industry - Nutrition

[comdyne2002]

We have been led to believe that all radiation is harmful. This was extrapolated on a graph as a straight line and is the basis for the theory of LNT aka Linear No Threshold. Scientists assume that this is correct and as a result they will defend it to the death never having evaluating much evidence to the contrary.

Such is the case of the Radon scare in the U.S. Exposures under 500 REM have been shown to be highly beneficial. Having been trained as a radiation worker in the Navy, I too believed all that I was told. I now know that I was misled by sincere people who believed it as well. Its just like your doctor believing in vaccinations when it is well-known for them to be useless against disease and there is much evidence that they cause severe harm. Even if he discovers the truth, he will continue to carry forth the medical torch because his livelihood depends upon it. Eventually some of them awaken to the truth and suffer terrible guilt in their having harmed their patients in pursuit of the almighty dollar. No wonder so many of them are alcoholics and drug addicts. Caveat Emptor! Carmi Hazen

------------------------------------------------------------------

While there might be some benefit to radiation, I am concerned that your presentation here is too
superficial and flies in the face of much experience to the contrary. I work with Radon gas somewhat
which is a form of natural radiation. This gas can kill if it enters homes at even very low levels. I have
never heard a report that noted benefits at highly diulted levels and damage only above another.
I think the point here was that exposure to toxic radiation is part of the toxicity of our environment and
adds to the stress burden of our bodies.

[Shannon Nelson]

Perhaps. It would be interesting to know whether that was determined.
But when we're talking about safety of radiation *in general*, implying (at least so I took your earlier remarks) that e.g. nuclear power plants and etc. are *safe*, well, contamination of the food supply is *unavoidably* an issue that goes right along with it. Hormeisis is a separate matter, and in NO way leads to the blanket conclusion that "radiation is safe"!!!!t

Shannon

[Shannon Nelson]

What does "exposure under 500 REM" equate to--e.g. how does that compare with, say, chest x-ray, skeletal x-ray, CAT scan, levels at various distances from Chernobyle, or ??
Shannon