"Why don't they evacuate Norway?" - a question by UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) Member Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski in noting that the limits set for evacuating people from around Chernobyl were below the average background radiation in Norway, and far, far below the high background areas of Norway and many other places in the world.
On a planet where virtually nothing is distributed equally, we should be surprised if terrestrial sources of background radiation were somehow evenly allocated. And they are definitely not. As noted in Table 10 (in chapter 11), some places have more than 130 times the average background radiation of the United States, and since the U.S. average is considerably higher than the ambient radiation inn other locations, there is easily a factor of 150 difference between points on the earth.
Believers in the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) hypothesis tell us that all radiation is dangerous, and that the danger is proportional to the dose received. Hey, since we have all these different levels of background radiation across the globe, all they have to do to prove their theory is to demonstrate that as the background radiation increases, so does cancer incidence - and perhaps even other maladies that we haven't yet even considered might be caused or aggravated by additional exposure.
Sadly (for them), this is demonstrably untrue. More than that. There is a large body of evidence that points in the opposite direction - that we are "underexposed" and that exposure to additional radiation will increase our health and vitality. This chapter intends to show some of that evidence.
Did you know that Japanese A-bomb survivors are outliving their unexposed peers? What if most of what you thought you knew about radiation is simply wrong? Find out how a rational assessment of radiation risks and benefits could offer increased health and vitality, as well as an avenue to nearly-limitless energy for the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment