4 ms·

No. At least the first page of the 1964 paper that makes a review of the previous work mentions the work done since mid-forties (that means, since around 1945)

by acqq 11y ago

No. At least the first page of the 1964 paper that makes a review of the previous work mentions the work done since mid-forties (that means, since around 1945) at Hanford. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PdfExcerptURL&_imagekey=3-s2.0-B9781483228907500114-main.pdf&_piikey=B9781483228907500114&_cdi=305021&_orig=PublicationURL&_zone=rslt_list_item&_fmt=abst&_eid=3-s2.0-B9781483228907500114&_isbn=9781483228907&_user=12975512&md5=8bcbbf00791e23975ee7ebb0c07e48fb&ie=/excerpt.pdf http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PdfExcerptURL&_imag... About that work at Hanford: http://www.hanfordproject.com/atmospheric.html http://www.hanfordproject.com/atmospheric.html "Classified studies done at Hanford revealed how radioiodine traveled through the food chain, increasing in concentration as it moved upwards into higher consumer species. Clandestine studies conducted at Hanford revealed how high dosage levels of ingested iodine-131 in sheep showed "virtually complete destruction" of their thyroids and those of their offspring. [3] Hanford officials repeatedly assured the public that, "not one atom" has escaped the facility. At one press conference officials stated bluntly that the facility was "safe as mother's milk" even as they were well aware of the possibility of compromising the health of both workers and the general public through Hanford's plutonium production activities. [4]" And about Hanford as the facility: "For more than forty years, Hanford released radioactive contamination into the environment while producing plutonium for the U.S. nuclear arsenal during the Cold War era. Although the majority of the releases were due to activities related to production, some were also planned and intentional."

mikeash 11y ago
That paper appears to discuss how iodine is absorbed and transported within the body, but not the long-term effects of it. Similarly, your italicized Hanford quote mentions acute effects from high doses, not long-term effects from low doses. I certainly could be wrong, but you and the others replying to me do not seem to be doing a very good job distinguishing between short term, high-dose effects (which were pretty well known) and long term, low-dose effects (which seem to have taken a lot longer to figure out).
- acqq 11y ago
  > not the long-term effects of it We know about the DNA since 1954, we know that the radiation particles destruct it as soon as they hit it. There's no any known mechanism under which the long-term effects can be anything but negative. The only ones who "benefited" are comics heroes like Spiderman. But do I have to point they don't exist? The only others who "benefit" are those who are doing the nuclear projects. And I'm not against nuclear in general. If that's the best we can do to provide the energy we want to use, we have to do it. But effectively inventing the health "benefits" is too much.
  - coddingtonbear 11y ago
    Although that's totally the common understanding, surprisingly there's rather a lot of evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis) at this point that it isn't actually true; it's just a little hard to say "a little radiation might be good for you" without people writing you off as some sort of crazy person at the outset, so it's not talked about very much. What you're describing -- and what most people who don't have a specialized education in the nuclear field commonly believe -- is something called the "linear no threshold" hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model) of radiation exposure, and although it's commonly used because it's definitely the safest and most conservative way of responding to radiation exposure, it's rather controversial and probably wrong. If you're curious and want to find out more, there's a lot of fascinating material about the subject available publicly, including some analyses of life expectancies in areas that have much-higher-than-normal background radiation (off the top of my head, Kerala, India is one such locality).
- Spooky23 11y ago
  All of the research from the timeframe of atmospheric atomic testing, is no doubt classified. There is plenty of evidence suggesting that exposure to low levels of radiation for extended periods increases cancer probabilities.
  - mikeash 11y ago

by acqq 11y ago

mikeash 11y ago

That paper appears to discuss how iodine is absorbed and transported within the body, but not the long-term effects of it. Similarly, your italicized Hanford quote mentions acute effects from high doses, not long-term effects from low doses. I certainly could be wrong, but you and the others replying to me do not seem to be doing a very good job distinguishing between short term, high-dose effects (which were pretty well known) and long term, low-dose effects (which seem to have taken a lot longer to figure out).

acqq 11y ago
> not the long-term effects of it We know about the DNA since 1954, we know that the radiation particles destruct it as soon as they hit it. There's no any known mechanism under which the long-term effects can be anything but negative. The only ones who "benefited" are comics heroes like Spiderman. But do I have to point they don't exist? The only others who "benefit" are those who are doing the nuclear projects. And I'm not against nuclear in general. If that's the best we can do to provide the energy we want to use, we have to do it. But effectively inventing the health "benefits" is too much.
- coddingtonbear 11y ago
  Although that's totally the common understanding, surprisingly there's rather a lot of evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis) at this point that it isn't actually true; it's just a little hard to say "a little radiation might be good for you" without people writing you off as some sort of crazy person at the outset, so it's not talked about very much. What you're describing -- and what most people who don't have a specialized education in the nuclear field commonly believe -- is something called the "linear no threshold" hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model) of radiation exposure, and although it's commonly used because it's definitely the safest and most conservative way of responding to radiation exposure, it's rather controversial and probably wrong. If you're curious and want to find out more, there's a lot of fascinating material about the subject available publicly, including some analyses of life expectancies in areas that have much-higher-than-normal background radiation (off the top of my head, Kerala, India is one such locality).
Spooky23 11y ago
All of the research from the timeframe of atmospheric atomic testing, is no doubt classified. There is plenty of evidence suggesting that exposure to low levels of radiation for extended periods increases cancer probabilities.
- mikeash 11y ago