4 ms·

Not on the same level as autism correlated to vaccines. And radiation hormesis has not been disproved as "bunk science" as far as it is widely known. https://e

by kensai 1y ago

Not on the same level as autism correlated to vaccines. And radiation hormesis has not been disproved as "bunk science" as far as it is widely known. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

infecto 1y ago
Nothing you have said in this thread has been supported by studies. Everything is a hypothesis or proposal. I would expect if this was real that there would be more concrete evidence over the decades, yet none exist. Maybe it’s not a falsified hypothesis but it’s at best a hypothesis. I am much more into the proven by a study science and medicine and not feelings.
- kensai 1y ago
  Actually there are many (admittedly weak or low in n) studies in Europe, which show some benefit. I will post some titles later, check this space. I agree that there are no big prospective studies and probably will never anymore be, because there is really no interest or gain from big pharma. The big time of physical therapies was last century and all studies, at least in Germany, stop by the 90s. An interesting article to read about the different approaches in Europe and America is this: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2203/dose-response.06-007.Erickson https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2203/dose-response.06-00...
  - infecto 1y ago
    Please don’t I won’t read them. I already saw the overview ok Wikipedia. Some studies that may suggest hormesis, most of them flawed. Everything is either a proposal or hypothesis. Absolutely it should be studied but those radiation spas are bunk science for now.
    - kensai 1y ago
      Prove where is the flaw first. A small or old study is not necessarily flawed. The burden of proving they are flawed falls on you. And no, I care less that they have not been replicated because the community lacks interest. Nobody said the effect is miraculous or similar, to compete with modern medical applications, but certainly they are cheap methods that complement with other general wellness effects of spas.
      - infecto 1y ago
        The burden of proof is on the person making claims that goes against the various world organizations that claim otherwise. I agree the current models that deal with exposure are probably not accurate but again nobody has proven the beneficial claims you have stated. I tend to believe in the markets being efficient in the long run, if these spas were beneficial surely someone would have captured the data after multiple decades.
        kensai 1y ago
        What are the various world organisations you are talking about? Because the German ones (among others) certainly have not found it harmful and have not banned it. I told you many times, unfortunately, no one will do studies on these things anymore because there is no money it and it cannot be patented. That spas generally are beneficial, though, for general wellbeing and especially if combined with known thermal stimuli (such as sauna) is well known and there are several Finnish studies to prove it. Last but not least, I have come across to many Americans who are generally doutbful of the medical indication of spas because there is little to no tradition overseas.
        infecto 1y ago
        No world organization accepts radiation hormesis. Full stop. I am glad you find benefit and I am not suggesting it’s dangerous but I am also not accepting that it is beneficial. This is not an American vs European thing please don’t make it. I am simply saying no governing body has accepted it beyond a study. Your view of the world is skewed if you think studies are not happening. People have been questioning LNT, which is the accepted policy by most of the world including Europe. There is nuance and suggestive evidence that low dose is ok, after all humans evolved with background radiation. What is unclear is how beneficial it is and at what doses it becomes harmful. There is no clear study that shows benefit hence LNT being the adopted approach.
- kensai 1y ago
  Bogoljudow VM (1988) The clinical aspectsof radon therapy. Y Phys Med Baln Med Klim (Sonderheft 1) 17: 59-66 Pratzel et al (1933) Wirksamkeitsnachweis von Radonbädern im Rahmen einer kurortmedizinischen Behandlung des cervicalen Schmerzsyndroms. Phys Rehab Kur Med 3: 76-82 And I found many more particularly from a certain Gunther R who has published a lot in Germany between the 70s and 90s with minor studies referenced. As said before, this is a dying tradition and no one cares to redo the experiments with better conditions, unfortunately. But until proven otherwise, it's all we have.
  - infecto 1y ago
    Thank you for proving my point. These are at best a hypothesis that no global body has approved. Is the LNT model overly strict? Probably. But is there strong evidence that low doses are beneficial? Nope.
    - kensai 1y ago
      No, you have proven my point. There is no strong evidence and IT WILL NEVER BE cause it's like trying to make a new study for a drug that has its patent expired. Are you willing to sponsor studies with your own money? Cause nobody else will. Unfortunately, we are stuck with the little evidence there is from the last century when it was the heyday of balneological applications. However, these little studies we have, even with few patients is better than nothing and certainly there is also not enough proof that these patients have been harmed, if doing radon therapy according to modern standards of exposure. As mentioned before: the linear extrapolation of the risk from high doses of radiation to low doses assumed by the LNT model greatly overestimates the risk of harm, and ignores the potential benefits. Low doses of radiation have been found to stimulate growth (Stebbing 1982), DNA repair (Kondo 1998a and 1998b), antioxidant action (Feinendegen 1987; Pollycove 1998), and immune response (Liu et al. 1987). Other studies have shown that cancer rates actually decrease in populations exposed to low levels of radiation beyond normal background radiation (Bogan 1998; Cohen 1995; Dissanayake 2005; Hattori 1997; Kondo 1993; Mifune 1992). The overestimation of risk by the LNT model is considered important by hormesis advocates, because its cautious perspective prevents patients from receiving low-level ionizing radiation treatments, such as radon, which might help them. Moreover, if radon levels were held to the standards mandated by the EPA and other agencies following the LNT model, the costs of residential radon abatement would be extraordinarily high (Macklis and Beresford 1991; Thomas and Goldsmith 1995).

by kensai 1y ago

infecto 1y ago

Nothing you have said in this thread has been supported by studies. Everything is a hypothesis or proposal. I would expect if this was real that there would be more concrete evidence over the decades, yet none exist. Maybe it’s not a falsified hypothesis but it’s at best a hypothesis. I am much more into the proven by a study science and medicine and not feelings.

kensai 1y ago
Actually there are many (admittedly weak or low in n) studies in Europe, which show some benefit. I will post some titles later, check this space. I agree that there are no big prospective studies and probably will never anymore be, because there is really no interest or gain from big pharma. The big time of physical therapies was last century and all studies, at least in Germany, stop by the 90s. An interesting article to read about the different approaches in Europe and America is this: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2203/dose-response.06-007.Erickson https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2203/dose-response.06-00...
- infecto 1y ago
  Please don’t I won’t read them. I already saw the overview ok Wikipedia. Some studies that may suggest hormesis, most of them flawed. Everything is either a proposal or hypothesis. Absolutely it should be studied but those radiation spas are bunk science for now.
  - kensai 1y ago
    Prove where is the flaw first. A small or old study is not necessarily flawed. The burden of proving they are flawed falls on you. And no, I care less that they have not been replicated because the community lacks interest. Nobody said the effect is miraculous or similar, to compete with modern medical applications, but certainly they are cheap methods that complement with other general wellness effects of spas.
    - infecto 1y ago
      The burden of proof is on the person making claims that goes against the various world organizations that claim otherwise. I agree the current models that deal with exposure are probably not accurate but again nobody has proven the beneficial claims you have stated. I tend to believe in the markets being efficient in the long run, if these spas were beneficial surely someone would have captured the data after multiple decades.
      - kensai 1y ago
        What are the various world organisations you are talking about? Because the German ones (among others) certainly have not found it harmful and have not banned it. I told you many times, unfortunately, no one will do studies on these things anymore because there is no money it and it cannot be patented. That spas generally are beneficial, though, for general wellbeing and especially if combined with known thermal stimuli (such as sauna) is well known and there are several Finnish studies to prove it. Last but not least, I have come across to many Americans who are generally doutbful of the medical indication of spas because there is little to no tradition overseas.
        infecto 1y ago
        No world organization accepts radiation hormesis. Full stop. I am glad you find benefit and I am not suggesting it’s dangerous but I am also not accepting that it is beneficial. This is not an American vs European thing please don’t make it. I am simply saying no governing body has accepted it beyond a study. Your view of the world is skewed if you think studies are not happening. People have been questioning LNT, which is the accepted policy by most of the world including Europe. There is nuance and suggestive evidence that low dose is ok, after all humans evolved with background radiation. What is unclear is how beneficial it is and at what doses it becomes harmful. There is no clear study that shows benefit hence LNT being the adopted approach.
kensai 1y ago
Bogoljudow VM (1988) The clinical aspectsof radon therapy. Y Phys Med Baln Med Klim (Sonderheft 1) 17: 59-66 Pratzel et al (1933) Wirksamkeitsnachweis von Radonbädern im Rahmen einer kurortmedizinischen Behandlung des cervicalen Schmerzsyndroms. Phys Rehab Kur Med 3: 76-82 And I found many more particularly from a certain Gunther R who has published a lot in Germany between the 70s and 90s with minor studies referenced. As said before, this is a dying tradition and no one cares to redo the experiments with better conditions, unfortunately. But until proven otherwise, it's all we have.
- infecto 1y ago
  Thank you for proving my point. These are at best a hypothesis that no global body has approved. Is the LNT model overly strict? Probably. But is there strong evidence that low doses are beneficial? Nope.
  - kensai 1y ago
    No, you have proven my point. There is no strong evidence and IT WILL NEVER BE cause it's like trying to make a new study for a drug that has its patent expired. Are you willing to sponsor studies with your own money? Cause nobody else will. Unfortunately, we are stuck with the little evidence there is from the last century when it was the heyday of balneological applications. However, these little studies we have, even with few patients is better than nothing and certainly there is also not enough proof that these patients have been harmed, if doing radon therapy according to modern standards of exposure. As mentioned before: the linear extrapolation of the risk from high doses of radiation to low doses assumed by the LNT model greatly overestimates the risk of harm, and ignores the potential benefits. Low doses of radiation have been found to stimulate growth (Stebbing 1982), DNA repair (Kondo 1998a and 1998b), antioxidant action (Feinendegen 1987; Pollycove 1998), and immune response (Liu et al. 1987). Other studies have shown that cancer rates actually decrease in populations exposed to low levels of radiation beyond normal background radiation (Bogan 1998; Cohen 1995; Dissanayake 2005; Hattori 1997; Kondo 1993; Mifune 1992). The overestimation of risk by the LNT model is considered important by hormesis advocates, because its cautious perspective prevents patients from receiving low-level ionizing radiation treatments, such as radon, which might help them. Moreover, if radon levels were held to the standards mandated by the EPA and other agencies following the LNT model, the costs of residential radon abatement would be extraordinarily high (Macklis and Beresford 1991; Thomas and Goldsmith 1995).