Preventing Glaucoma with Radiation

[Kirk Freeman]

Yes, radiation is good for you despite the media nonsense. Further studies indicate that using radiation on children to prevent glaucoma for a lifetime have proven effective.

X-rays when young protect from Glaucoma? | SmartPlanet

 

[actaeon277]

Limited radiation, in certain circumstances.
Don't forget, the risk of cancer.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Radiation is far more useful than harmful.

The anti-science lobby is working hard to make everyone afraid of the eeevil invisible radiation.

 

[actaeon277]

Well, I was a Reactor Operator on a submarine. I do know a little about radiation.
There are a lot of good uses of radiation.
But long term effects are hard to judge.

 

[Denny347]

Radiation is far more useful than harmful.

The anti-science lobby is working hard to make everyone afraid of the eeevil invisible radiation.

What kind of radiation? There are different kinds. You have Ionizing (particulates like Alpha, Beta, and electromagnetic like x-rays and gamma rays) and Non-ionizing ( Electromagnetic radiation ranging from extremely low frequency (ELF) to ultraviolet (UV) comprise non-ionizing radiation;
ELF Radiation, RF/MW Radiation, IR, Visible,UV, Laser Radiation. Some kinds of radiation is helpful while others are not. Too much of ANY can be fatal but that is more difficult than most think.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What kind of radiation?

Exactly right.

The anti-science lobby is purposefully muddling all types and not reporting the wonderful uses that radiation has.

 

[eldirector]

Without radiation, it would be awful cold and dark around here...

 

[rambone]

Further studies indicate that using radiation on children to prevent glaucoma for a lifetime have proven effective.http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/x-rays-when-young-protect-from-glaucoma/24586

Did they do these tests in the 1940s? How do you they will be effective for a lifetime?

Sincerely,
The Anti-Science Lobby

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Did they do these tests in the 1940s? How do you they will be effective for a lifetime?

Thank you, anti-science lobby. I'll answer briefly so you can get back to applying leeches and swinging dead cats over your head.

Correct the '40s; the first tests were done in August of 1945.

Radiology Daily»AlertArchive » Single X-ray Burst Blocks Glaucoma For Life

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Radiation is far more useful than harmful.

The anti-science lobby is working hard to make everyone afraid of the eeevil invisible radiation.

Oh, excellent. I didn't realize you were a doctor as well as a lawyer, Mr. Freeman.

There is no known safe or 'helpful' level of ionizing radiation. None. There exists background radiation, the natural, already-present radiation stemming from elements in the Earth, and on it, but even this has not been demonstrated to be helpful, just survivable for most. Radiation is useful in cancer treatment because it destroys those targeted cells by irradiating them. A very common side-effect of radiation therapy is neo-malignancies. Brand-new cancers you didn't have before the radiation. As is the case with some chemotherapy. Citation needed. Serious citation needed.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

There is no known safe or 'helpful' level of radiation. None.

Radiation is very helpful. It helps your garden grow and keeps cancer at bay.

It's not like people will pay other people to receive helpful radiation:

http://www.radonmine.com/

Hormesis is your friend. I love hormesis to pieces.

Serious citation needed.

You could just read the New York Times. They may be a bunch of pants-wetting socialists but they know their science if not politics.

 

[Phil502]

Oh, excellent. I didn't realize you were a doctor as well as a lawyer, Mr. Freeman.

There is no known safe or 'helpful' level of ionizing radiation. None. There exists background radiation, the natural, already-present radiation stemming from elements in the Earth, and on it, but even this has not been demonstrated to be helpful, just survivable for most. Radiation is useful in cancer treatment because it destroys those targeted cells by irradiating them. A very common side-effect of radiation therapy is neo-malignancies. Brand-new cancers you didn't have before the radiation. As is the case with some chemotherapy. Citation needed. Serious citation needed.

There is the Radiation Hormesis hypothesis. Not believed by all, but some. Kirk beat me by 5 minutes while I was posting.

 

[rambone]

Correct the '40s; the first tests were done in August of 1945.

Radiology Daily»AlertArchive » Single X-ray Burst Blocks Glaucoma For Life

Ok... I don't see anything about the 1945 test subjects in your link. Did they remain Glaucoma free? (backing up your claim)

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Ok... I don't see anything about the 1945 test subjects in your link. Did they remain Glaucoma free? (backing up your claim)

The 1945 test subjects were in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

They remained glaucoma free.

 

[rambone]

The 1945 test subjects were in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

They remained glaucoma free.

Oh, okay. Its settled then. Science is fun.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Oh, come on, break up your leeching and dead cat swinging by reading and studying, it is fun.

 

[88GT]

Oh, okay. Its settled then. Science is fun.

LOL, science is what helps prove your side of the argument just as much as the other. Unless you want to admit to making claims you can't back up.

 

[eldirector]

LOL, science is what helps prove your side of the argument just as much as the other. Unless you want to admit to making claims you can't back up.

Science can neither prove nor disprove emotional arguments. It can test a hypothesis, but that's about it.

"Swinging cats" - I gotta remember that one!

 

[Hotdoger]

Great thread Kirk!

Btw did you know chemo kills, except of course my son who has lived three years off treatment.;-)

 

[88GT]

Science can neither prove nor disprove emotional arguments. It can test a hypothesis, but that's about it.

"Swinging cats" - I gotta remember that one!

"Prove" was used tongue-in-cheek. I thought it was a given since the same data cannot support opposite sides of an issue and thus neither are proven. Sorry. Science humor that didn't transmit.