Hacker News Reader

Comment by joshe | Hacker News Reader

Here's a very straightforward study, "Evidence That Lifelong Low Dose Rates of Ionizing Radiation Increase Lifespan in Long- and Short-Lived Dogs" [1].

Two studies on beagles:

"One exposed the dogs to whole-body cobalt-60 γ-radiation."

"The other evaluated dogs whose lungs were exposed to α-particle radiation from plutonium."

For both studies, excess radiation improved their lifespans by 20-50 percent. It is a substantial beneficial effect. Above a beneficial level of radiation their lifespans shortened to the level of dogs who were not exposed at all and then to substantial reductions in lifespans.

This graph illustrates it best: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5347275/figure/...

We don't know why low radiation exposure is good, but it does seem to be.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5347275/

View on HN

The lack of public trust in science is a real problem, and mostly unjustified or misdirected. That said, nothing reinforces the evil scientist image like irradiating puppies.

It is pretty dark. There's even a cute beagle picture in a graph. Apparently beagles are the preferred model animal for radiation studies going back to the 1950's.

I don't even have a problem with it necessarily, but they should probably use pigs. Nobody cares about pigs.

Pigs are actually great pets. They've been domesticated practically as long as dogs

Truth. Had pigs for a time as a kid. When people spend quality time with them, pigs respond.

They like people.

I lived on a farm for a year as a kid. The owner was missing an ear and always made sure to remind me to keep all body parts outside the hog pen.

But that's a waste of bacon!

Then you do a controlled blind study on extending the lifespans of humans eating bacon from irradiated pigs. Wastage stopped, science advanced, lifespans extended (maybe).

I don’t know, given p-hacking and reproducibility problems, science “journalism” that tends to report the results of single experiments as confirmed findings, and pay-gating of research behind for-profit journals, the scientific establishment does have some credibility challenges atm.

Back in the early 20th century, American doctors lobbied very hard to ensure that radium-coated water dispensers sold did indeed contain enough radioactive material to provide “health” benefits.

My, how times have changed.

I just got back from vacation in Germany, and while I was doing research for the trip I found a spa near one of the places I was staying that does radon therapy. From what I could gather on the web site, you sit for multiple sessions in a room with walls made of crushed radon-producing rock, reading, chatting with your neighbors, or having a snooze. Also, they ensure the radon levels comply with the German Spas Association's guidelines and you need a doctor's prescription to get treated.

I recall seeing a documentary about early glow in the dark wristwatches with hand painted radium dials. The painters would occasionally lick the brush tips to make a fine point. A large percentage of them died from terrible forms of lip, mouth and throat cancer.

Radium Girls is a fairly well-reviewed book about that: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31409135-the-radium-girl...

Radiation hormesis is taught to basically all X-Ray and CT techs (and I assume lots of other specialties) when they go through school.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

Nothing like this in Belarus. Instead there are more than 10K/year of extra cases of cancer due to Chernobyl.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com