Radiation

[fiveworlds]

Is being exposed to too little radiation harmful?

[Sensei]

Is being exposed to too little radiation harmful?

If you're unlucky. Yes.

Some particle emitted by radioactive isotope can pass through your cells, causing ionization, and damaging cell's DNA in such way it'll become cancer.

Then it'll be spreading damage to the next generation of cell and cancer will grow with time.

 

Eating food containing unstable isotopes with short half-lives is dangerous as you introduce these atoms to become part of your cells.

Breathing gaseous unstable isotopes might end up with lung cancer.

 

Too much radiation, caused by nuclear weapon, or nuclear reactor, and so much cells will be damaged at the same time that whole organism will be malfunctioning, and death will be sudden and painful.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Sensei

[Endy0816]

It can be. Vitamin D production and to stimulate your immune system.

[John Cuthber]

If you're unlucky. Yes.

Some particle emitted by radioactive isotope can pass through your cells, causing ionization, and damaging cell's DNA in such way it'll become cancer.

Then it'll be spreading damage to the next generation of cell and cancer will grow with time.

 

Eating food containing unstable isotopes with short half-lives is dangerous as you introduce these atoms to become part of your cells.

Breathing gaseous unstable isotopes might end up with lung cancer.

 

Too much radiation, caused by nuclear weapon, or nuclear reactor, and so much cells will be damaged at the same time that whole organism will be malfunctioning, and death will be sudden and painful.

Pardon?

Did you read the question properly?

[Strange]

There is a hypothesis that a minimum level of radiation is needed to stimulate repair mechanisms in cells. This wouldn't be too surprising a we have evolved with a certain background level.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

[MigL]

Although I can see the need for solar radiation ( never mind what the sun-block manufacturers tell you ), I can't see a need for particulate ( alpha, beta, etc. ) radiation.

[Sensei]

Pardon?

Did you read the question properly?

Did you?

 

That question can be interpreted many different ways.

Radiation can be non-ionizing (photons with small energies), or ionizing radiation (uv, x-rays, gamma rays photons, alpha, beta particles etc).

OP didn't mention which one he has in mind (so I assumed he is interested in radiation caused by decay of radioactive isotopes).

 

What does mean "too little radiation"?

Less than background radiation?

Or slightly more, but "small"?

 

Does lack of non-ionizing radiation harmful? i.e. lack of light - check on Arctic..

Edited October 7, 2014 by Sensei

[Strange]

 

What does mean "too little radiation"?

 

Less than what might be required. (As in "too little food" or "too little oxygen")

 

You described the negative effects of radiation. What the OP asked was about the possible negative effects of absence of radiation.

 

But I also assumed he meant ionizing radiation, rather than say sunlight (or TV broadcasts).

[swansont]

 

But I also assumed he meant ionizing radiation, rather than say sunlight (or TV broadcasts).

 

Or (shudder) wi-fi

[fiveworlds]

Less than what might be required. (As in "too little food" or "too little oxygen")

 

You described the negative effects of radiation. What the OP asked was about the possible negative effects of absence of radiation.

 

But I also assumed he meant ionizing radiation, rather than say sunlight (or TV broadcasts).

 

 

Or (shudder) wi-fi

 

 

Correct I am a bit slow to reply today my flat Shower Glass exploded because of thermal shock.

[John Cuthber]

Did you?

 

That question can be interpreted many different ways.

Radiation can be non-ionizing (photons with small energies), or ionizing radiation (uv, x-rays, gamma rays photons, alpha, beta particles etc).

OP didn't mention which one he has in mind (so I assumed he is interested in radiation caused by decay of radioactive isotopes).

 

What does mean "too little radiation"?

Less than background radiation?

Or slightly more, but "small"?

 

Does lack of non-ionizing radiation harmful? i.e. lack of light - check on Arctic..

Yes, I read it.

And, with respect I think there's a better chance that I understood it than that you did.

Where you say "What does mean "too little radiation"?"

I presume that you mean

"What does 'too little radiation' mean?"

And the answer to that is not enough radiation.

 

The question is a bit vague because they don't specify what sort of radiation they mean.

But the meaning of "too little" is clear

Edited October 7, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Sensei]

The question is a bit vague because they don't specify what sort of radiation they mean.

But the meaning of "too little" is clear

 

No, it's not. There is needed info what is meant to be origin, normal amount of radiation. I can interpret it as "smaller amount than average Earth's background radiation".

 

Radiation from radioactive isotopes we count in Becquerels (Bq), or Sieverts (Sv). It can't be smaller than 0 Bq.

Bq per area, per volume, Sv per second, or per hour, per year etc. etc.

 

Background radiation is higher value than 0 Bq.

 

IMHO background radiation is also harmful, and causing cancers in long term (like 50 years), but you have to be unlucky. This process is random, this is what my 1st post was about in the first place.

 

There are plans to use vertical DNA chains as particle detector:

http://www.wired.com/2012/07/gold-dna-dark-matter/

When particle will be passing through DNA, they will be randomly cut.

Now imagine ANY amount of radioactive isotopes (from natural abundant) doing the same in your cells for 50 years+.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Sensei

[fiveworlds]

What if the ionizing radiation did not have enough energy to pass your skin? Skin is replaced every few days and it may kill off bacteria. Ionizing radiation is also used to sterilize food.

Edited October 7, 2014 by fiveworlds

[Sensei]

What if the ionizing radiation did not have enough energy to pass your skin? Skin is replaced every few days and it may kill off bacteria.

 

See example uv photons. They have very few energy each. But they can cause skin cancer.

[fiveworlds]

See example uv photons. They have very few energy each. But they can cause skin cancer.

 

They are also used in low amounts by the body to help it produce Vitamin D. http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessional/

Edited October 7, 2014 by fiveworlds

[Strange]

IMHO background radiation is also harmful, and causing cancers in long term

 

There is no good evidence that this is true. (you are ignoring repair mechanisms, for example)

[Sensei]

 

There is no good evidence that this is true. (you are ignoring repair mechanisms, for example)

 

It's kinda the same argumentation as with f.e. global warming.. Effects are after dozen years after event causing them, so it's easier to tell there is no evidence..

 

Isn't presence of cancer proof? Compare data of people before '45 and after '45..

or compare cancer presence in 3rd world countries and western..

 

Background radiation in USA, Russia, and other countries that performed nuclear weapon tests on their territory, are much higher than background radiation of 3rd world countries..

 

(image from background radiation wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation )

Edited October 8, 2014 by Sensei

[Strange]

From the page I linked earlier:

 

studies involving low doses and low dose rates have failed to detect any increased cancer rate.

 

The jury is still out on this.

[John Cuthber]

 

No, it's not. There is needed info what is meant to be origin, normal amount of radiation. I can interpret it as "smaller amount than average Earth's background radiation".

 

 

Nope.

No reference or origin needs to be specified because it's implied by the use of the word "too"..

The reference is "just the right amount"- it has nothing to do with whatever the current background is.

I have a lot of respect for people who can post stuff in their second language, but it's silly when they start arguing about English with not one, but two native speakers.

Strange and I have both pointed out your error..

Arguing won't change that.

 

Meanwhile, back at the topic.

Since everything emits radiation unless it's at absolute zero, then no radiation would be plainly a bad thing- the cold would kill you, and so would the vacuum.

[Carrock]

IMHO background radiation is also harmful, and causing cancers in long term.

There is no good evidence that this is true. (you are ignoring repair mechanisms, for example)

 

This argument is often used by the nuclear industry.

 

In any other context, body repair mechanisms are regarded as a means of minimizing and sometimes preventing long term damage.

 

In other words, if low level radiation causes no harm, why do repair mechanisms try to minimize its effects?

[Strange]

In other words, if low level radiation causes no harm, why do repair mechanisms try to minimize its effects?

 

If low level-radiation causes no harm (or at least, less harm than predicted by the LNT model) it is because there are repair mechanisms.

[MigL]

Since the body is an adaptive organism, its not always damage, but change.

As an example, uv causes skin cancer, but, it also makes cells produce melanin, which is a good defense against skin cancer.

The cancer, or damage if you will, only occurs when the body's adaptive processes ( or repair mechanism ) is overcome.

 

I got all my vast knowledge about adaptation and evolution from the first ten minutes of 2001:A Space Odyssey.

[Enthalpy]

There is a hypothesis that a minimum level of radiation is needed to stimulate repair mechanisms in cells. This wouldn't be too surprising a we have evolved with a certain background level.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

 

"Hormesis" is pseudo-science and true propaganda by the nuclear lobby. I regret it has found its way into Wikipedia.

 

If low level-radiation causes no harm (or at least, less harm than predicted by the LNT model) it is because there are repair mechanisms.

 

"Less harm observed than the LNT model predicts" is propaganda by the nuclear lobby, too.

What if the ionizing radiation did not have enough energy to pass your skin? Skin is replaced every few days and it may kill off bacteria. Ionizing radiation is also used to sterilize food.

 

Any amount of ionizing radiation efficient against bacteria kills a human too.

[Endy0816]

I really don't find it so. There is research out there in support. Main issue is the omnipresent background level. Difficult to research without ensuring a ton of controls.

 

We're not talking about the higher levels produced via nuclear reactions, but instead people ending up at levels lower than background. Was a realistic concern when I was still serving aboard a submarine.

[Strange]

 

"Hormesis" is pseudo-science and true propaganda by the nuclear lobby. I regret it has found its way into Wikipedia..

 

Yeah, right. That is why Wikipedia is able to cite peer reviewed science on the subject.