Fear of radiation can be irrational

Since the general population has no idea what levels are safe, the media is free to stir up catchy stories about anything radiation related. You can't expect the media to report responsibly, they're just regular folks incented to build audience.

Society could make more rational decisions if this were solved. Responsible reporting might compare newsy radiation to ordinary events ("about as much radiation exposure as a flight from NY to LA" or "twice the ordinary background radiation levels for New York City").

But how could you incent the media to report usefully? Laws? I'm stumped. If they don't feel inclined, it won't happen.

The idea that "small amounts of radiation do little/no measurable harm" is neither new nor unknown. This does not mean that exposure to low levels of radiation is beneficial. That argument is on a par with homeopathy.

Yes, there's a long-running argument that a nuclear power industry causes less damage to health than the traditional fossil-fuel alternatives. Again, nothing new.

But on to the radon tunnels: "I spent my 30 radon-breathing minutes had room for 20 or so people who had signed on for its protective value or its alleged benefit".

"The doctor in charge on the day of my visit…told me of clinical trials" - so far, so good. "of surveys testifying to the popularity of the treatment" - uh oh. "of patients who are able to cut down on or even abandon the drug therapies they would otherwise have been using" - hmm. "How much of this evidence would rate as gold standard in quality, I have no idea" - then perhaps this is the time to investigate further, before reporting.

Clinical, peer-reviewed studies would go a long way to supporting the article. But even though clinical studies are mentioned in the article, there's no link to the supporting study.

Sure, homeopathy and all sorts of dodgy remedies have their advocates. But until this is backed up by a published peer-reviewed clinical study, this article belongs firmly in the camp of bad science.

This is why grays/rads are different units from sieverts/rems.

For instance, iodine-131 is a beta emitter. Most low energy beta emitters basically have zero health risk. Your internal organs are adequately shielded from it by nothing more than your own skin. The danger in I-131 is that if you are iodine-deficient, you will readily absorb the iodine into your body and concentrate it in your thyroid. Once there, it can zap your thyroid with high-energy electrons because it is sitting right there inside of it. This type of radiation can be protected against by swallowing a pill of nonradioactive KI prior to exposure.

Radon-222 is an alpha-emitter. Alphas are positively charged, so they too are stopped by very light shielding. The greatest danger is from ionization and scattering, like a high-energy cue ball hitting a triangle of billiard balls which all plow through the back rail of the pool table. The greatest danger is when the emitter is inside your body, such as stuck to the alveoli in your lungs--which is what would happen if you sat in a radon-rich spa for a while.

But in any case, the dose makes the poison, and if a radiation hormesis effect exists, good luck to the people wanting to prove it. As for myself, I fear radiation itself far less than both the human who fears it beyond what is rational and the human who does not sufficiently respect its dangers.

I've had similar conversations with people about radiation, I've pointed them to the excellent radiation chart, and I've gone over papers and articles and data galore. But if they are afraid, they are afraid. And deciding not to be afraid is often challenging. It is no different than people who are afraid of germs and are incessantly cleaning their living spaces or sanitizing their dishes in an autoclave. They know germs can kill them, they know they can't see or feel or taste germs they might be ingesting or coming into contact with, so they spend all sorts of time and energy on eliminating germs.

Is it irrational? No, not in the strict sense, germs really can kill them. Is it emotional? Absolutely there is a very real fear response there. Is it proportional to the threat? No, and that is where folks need to have a discussion in terms of proportion rather than real / not-real or threat / not-threat.

Fear of radiation is indeed irrational, because the radiation most likely to give you cancer is sunlight!

Fear of radioactive substances is very rational. The danger of radioactive material is that it can be consumed, and so bypasses the protection of the only organ that has actually evolved substantial defence against ionising radiation (your skin). As it hangs around for an indeterminate amount of time you have little way of knowing how much radiation you have absorbed.

Ionizing radiation, on the other hand, has a small chance of popping an atom out of a molecule in your body. It's the energy of single particles that matters, not the number of them (although you can certainly be cooked alive by enough ionizing radiation). If an atom is popped out of the right molecule (i.e. the DNA stored in one of your cells) in exactly the right place (e.g. the portions that suppress out-of-control replication) then you can get cancer. That mistake in your DNA might be repaired or the cell might simply die. It might be fine for a while, but that one mistake could lead to compounding errors in future cell divisions, eventually leading to cancer.

There are many forms of cancer, but their severity is not a function of how much radiation a person has been exposed to. Someone with a lot of exposure to man-made radiation sources might get a slow growing tumor in a non-vital area while a person who spent his life a thousand kilometers from civilization could get an aggressively spreading form of cancer in an inoperable area.

So, can light exposure to radiation be therapeutic? Probably not. If there are benefits to the treatments at Radhausberg, they are likely either due to some other factor or the placebo effect. The radiation is at a mostly harmless level for visitors, but it's not impossible that this could be the place where you get cancer. I'd be more concerned for the staff who are exposed year-round. The exposure received by nuclear plant workers is meticulously monitored and is likely far lower than what the workers at Radhausberg are receiving. 1 mSv is in the range of a medical diagnostic test, but multiply that by 2-3 hundred per year for several years and you get a pretty big dose.

Perhaps the most ironic thing related to this story is the fact that background radiation exposure for typical Germans has probably increased significantly in the last few years. Germany's main source of electricity is coal power, and they're relying on it more heavily than before now that they've shut down their nuclear reactors. For power plants of the same capacity, radioactive emissions are typically two orders of magnitude higher for coal power plants than for nuclear power plants.

I'm no expert, but I've seen much less discussion and safety study about radiation exposure via intake and biological binding. The pathway of concern there would where dust or other particles of a radioactive substance are spread in an environment, then concentrated via natural means: erosion or biological (e.g. predators taking in prey); then exposed to humans. In that context, even a small amount of bound material may be continuously emitting where one is always getting a dose.

We actually take advantage of this pathway for short-lived isotopes for medical procedures, but obviously longer lived isotopes are more dangerous. Most safety in radiation discussions seem to measure the emissive strength, and declare things safe while ignoring the accumulation side of things. I think it's actually a much more difficult risk to characterize and to perform experiment with for obvious reasons..

On the contrary I believe it is very rational to fear radon. In Spain or France it is normal for families in some places to have family wineries on caves.

In those places if there was radon(coming from minerals associated to granites) cancer was way higher than normal levels. You have to be careful to ventilate those caves when they stay closed for some time.

My family had one of those. As there are lots of scientists in my family, we were always careful, including using a geiger counter and controlling how much time we played there as kids(it was a very fun place to play) but I had seen pretty stupid people about it(neighbors, friends), their stupidity coming from ignorance. And I had seen people getting ill from cancer and dying too.

It doesn't hurt to be careful.

I think this author has not realized (nor been informed) what an unmitigated disaster Fukushima really is. The media is downplaying its effects, and so is the author of this article.

How about listening to Helen Caldicott who is an MD and pediatrician, and deeply knowledgeable about the scientific and real-world effects of radiation exposure. Listen to her talk about the children of Fukushima and other places where people have been subjected to radiation. I think our fear of radiation may not be irrational at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qX-YU4nq-g

Considering the headline, I was hoping for a bit better than this.

edited to add - I found their website - http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http:/... - it has not improved my opinion.

Yes, most people have an irrational fear of radiation. I've run into the Fukushima thing myself. People think of it as a horrible disaster, and when I point out that the death toll is actually zero, they don't believe me.