Obviously radon gas is not a cure for a terminal case of stupidity huh?

Ya know, I was diagnosed with cancer at 25 so I can understand the mindframe of a person who is terminally ill and will try anything to get well (surgery did it for me).

What I cannot understand or excuse are charlatans exploiting that mind set of an ill person. Charlatans such as these should be lined up and sodomized with a shotgun… double barrelled prefered. It doesn’t matter if it is religion or pseudo-science to me ... they are all the same in my book

How about taking all these idiots, putting them in the mines and sealing em up?

gak! this is one of my pet peeves
I am gonna go take a walk and calm down before I chew someone’s head off :(

One of the few things that I remember from nuclear power training is that it is not good to be unnecessarily close to a radiation source. However, reading this I can see that we really didn’t have to fuss with dosimeters and film badges after all.

I guess in desperation people will try anything. It’s a shame that many will end up suffering more in the long term. 

Why do these people continue to market their ‘products’ as cure-alls?  Wouldn’t it be more effective to follow the lead of the drug companies and pick a couple of specific issues that the product addresses and then list some beneficial side effects it may have? 

One thing in their favor is that the price is cheap!  Only $5.00 an hour or $150 per season.

This from the FAQ section:
[Quote]Q. Will I get sick?

A. Many experience the mine “reactionâ€?  - aches and pains and flu-like symptoms .  These are brief, pass quickly and a good sign that your body is reacting favorably to the radon.

Sounds a lot like radiation posioning.

You know, some days I just kick myself for having too many morals to hang out a shingle like this and make money hand over fist.  I know I could pull it off, too, just by following all the “alternative medicine” party lines.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11642642 or
http://tinyurl.com/68dxl

See this clinical trial in the journal Arthritis and Rheumatology. Group 1 went to the Gasteiner Heilstollen in Austria, a radon mine/hospital, for radon therapy.

Group 1 was positive vs. controls and Group 2 (that went a sauna spa) at 28 and 40 weeks.

Health spas that had been in use since Roman times were found to have high radioactivity levels after radioactivity was discovered.

Roentgen’s x-rays were found to cure infections and inflammatory diseases within months (1896). They were used in the early-mid 20th C. But sulfa drugs, then antibiotics, caused them to be abandoned - after all, drugs are much more profitable. Plus $ 100s of Billions for radiation protection.

Follow the money! 

[Having trouble with the URL links and Preview - I’ll try again if it doesn’t work.]

Regards, Jim Muckerheide

Jim, your name looked very familiar (Muckerheide is definitely unique!), and a quick Googling revealed why… I’ve peeked in on a few threads on the RadSafe list and seen your posts in conversation with my former roommate and good friend, Barbara Hamrick.

I freely admit to having no education about radiation and the effect of radioactivity (and the fear-mongering we’re exposed to in relation to it) beyond Barb’s patiently explaining things to my ignorant ass :D

With that in mind (in other words, make it easy for this simpleton to understand!), can you perhaps share your thoughts as to HOW this radon therapy might be helpful in treating some of these ailments?

Thanks very much

("present")

I’ll try to put some more (referenced) information together on the subject.

In brief, “the dose makes the poison.” Like many substances (iron, chromium, manganese, etc.), it is postulated that low doses of radiation may actually provide beneficial effects, even while higher doses are harmful or fatal.  Since we evolved in a sea of radiation (much higher in prehistoric times), it is potentially critical to our continued health, although the specific benefits are not known.  There is some indication that it may stimulate the immune system, or have other effects that stimulate critical repair mechanisms.

Barbara L. Hamrick

Some immutable facts to ponder (from “Radiation Hormesis and the Radiologic Imperative” at http://www.auntminnie.com/print/print.asp?sec=sup&sub=xra&pag=dis&ItemId=57709&)

“Predictably, with its “discovery,” nuclear physics was labeled a new science and presumed to be somewhat manmade and under man’s dominion and control.  Hasty scientific hypothesis and public dogma held that nuclear phenomena with ionizing radiation were hazardous at any level, and that humans must be shielded and protected from this “new” hazard.  The very idea is ironic, since the truth of the matter is that man is a product of nuclear energy, not vice versa.”
“While generations of students and scientists have learned about radioactive decay and the half-lives of various radioactive elements and isotopes, virtually no one has turned the telescope around and discussed or documented the reverse view:  the same number of half-lives taken back into the past produces a double-life, a doubling of radioactivity for these elements, and an incremental terrestrial background level many times higher than today’s levels.”
“...10 billion years passed before the first life forms appeared on earth.  Part of this delay was undoubtedly due to the early inhospitality of this planet to the initial generation of life, as well as to the subsequent preservation and propagation of primitive single-cell organisms.  However, there was another essential biologic requirement for these early simple organisms:  the need to tolerate and adapt to the inherent risk factors of early Earth, such as ionizing radiation, a sort of radiologic imperative necessary for life.
The possibility of such an imperative was never considered by science or society following the new and startling discovery of these mysterious rays, and it was arbitrarily decreed that ionizing radiation is intrinsically dangerous at even the lowest levels.  To guard against any risk or hazard, scientists settled on the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis for radiation protection by extrapolating risk data from high-level exposure down through lower levels all the way down to zero exposure--a level which has never existed on earth except in specially shielded containers with artificial environments.
And this is the biggest surprise and best-kept secret of all:  a man isolated in such a chamber and secure from extrinsic backgroung radiation would still experience significant intrinsic irradiation from himself.  The human body, rather than being a chaste and inviolate vessel of biologic purity, devoid of and unpenetrated by ionizing radiation, is actually its own radioactive repository and beehive of ionizing rays, with an intrinsic level of nearly 9,000Bq for the average 150-pound human.
“This defies the original popular image of the human body as a radiosterile structure, and the resulting widespread assumption that any ionizing ray within this structure represents an isolated disruptive burst of thunder and lightning, which blasts and damages biologic tissue, and leaves a smouldering scar waiting to later burst into a consuming fire of malignant destruction.  A more accurate view is that these radioactive rays represent the steady spark of nature’s ignition in a smoothly running biologic engine.  Early life on this planet swam in an ocean of ionizing radiation, and this invisible ocean has clearly not disappeared even though it has receded...Man’s psyche may have been exposed to the reality of ionizing radiation for the first time in 1896, but his soma has been bombarded for eons by retrogressively higher levels of natural background radiation, punctuated by episodes of extraterrestrial radiation from exploding supernovae and occasional hypernovae, as well as evolving solar activity.
According to the LNT hypothesis, such levels should have sterilized the earth and eradicated all life.  Instead, radiation may have produced multiple new mutations in existing life forms, with the negative disadvantageous mutations disappearing rapidly, and the positive advantageous mutations prospering and propagating.  Indeed, it seems likely that this radiologic imperative was a significant factor in the evolution of all species.”

Hi Roxanne,

Radon (in a bath/spring or in air) is taken in through the skin and lungs to the blood stream and is taken up in fat - saturates in an hour or so. Radon levels return to normal in a few hours.

Biology needs ionizing radiation to function. Organisms and cells that have the radioactive potassium taken out of natural potassium and shielded from most of background, cease to function. When our cells evolved, natural radioactivity was about 10 times higher than now.

The following brief summary by Dr. Liu shows high dose vs. low dose response as it affects immune molecules and cells, and indicates how the government scientists ‘fail’ to find that low doses are stimulatory.
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/LiuANS_Nov2002.htm

Regards, Jim Muckerheide

Thanks Jim/all for your radon support.  http://www.radonmine.com is being rebuilt as we speak - due to launch this week or early next.  Til then, here are links to real live medical radon facilities, complete with medical doctors:
Gasteiner Heilstollen - Bad Gastein, Austria
http://gasteiner-heilstollen.info/dt/d2/

Furstenzeche Bergwerk - Lam, Germany
http://www.fuerstenzeche.de

Radium Palace - Jachymov, Czech Republic.
The Radium Palace hospital and sanitorium was established in 1912 by Marie Sklodowska Curie. Marie Curie (1867-1934) was the first woman to receive a Nobel Prize - granted for her work in discovering polonium and then radium in 1898 while seeking the cause of radioactivity of pitchblend from Joachimsthal, Bohemia.
Behounek’s Sanatorium (est’d 1977) - Jachymov, Czech Republic
Curie Sanatorium (est’d 1992) - Jachymov, Czech Republic
http://www.laznejachymov.cz

Kurmittelhaus Sibyllenbad - Neualbenreuth, Germany
http://www.sibyllenbad.de

appreciate all your time on this topic.
pat

Good Pat,

Note to readers: The ‘English’ link on the Heilstollen site is in the lower left (almost invisible); or go to:

http://www324.s5.brauser.at/estart.htm

Suggested (brief) reading: the “History,” “Radon” and “Ankylosing spondylitis” links.

Regards, Jim

One more point: 

Re the ‘evil’ being done: At the press conf when the NAS panel released the report to support the “radon kills 15,000 people/yr” nonsense, a ‘member of the press’ asked the panel members who had had their house tested for radon - stunned silence! Not a single one of them.

They also utterly ignored the numerous comprehensive studies of lung cancer vs. radon in the US by county by Cohen that had been the instigation for the review, along with others, which showed that there is less lung cancer in the high radon areas, with high statistical correlations and smooth fitting. See, e.g.:

http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/dd3/2.1.2.1.1.1Cohen95.html

The “theory” line in the plots is the gov’t “prediction” vs. the actual data.

Regards, Jim

Sorry Jim, I just don’t buy it. Neither of the studies you listed in your first reply were double-blind experiments nor did either one say anything about the positive effects of radon exposure. In addition to that the measures used for determining effect were largely subjective consisting of things such as “patient’s global well-being, pain, and duration of morning stiffness,” and the results given are not so significant to put them beyond the placebo effect. Finally, the conclusions stated merely say that going to a spa in addition to drug-treatment and standard weekly physical therapy provides some benefit, which very well may be true. Assuming that because the spas mentioned have radon therapy means that radon was beneficial in their treatment is quite a jump and not even the studies themselves suggest this. It’s worth noting that they spell out exactly what was engaged in at the spas and this included “group physical exercises, walking, correction therapy (lying supine on a bed), hydrotherapy, sports” in addition to “visits to either the Gasteiner Heilstollen (Austria) or sauna (Netherlands).” There is nothing in either of these studies that would suggest the radon aspect of the spas played any significant part in the outcomes.

Your statement about health spas in use since Roman times is nice, but it’s anecdotal and proves nothing. You don’t mention which health spas nor do you provide any information that indicates those health spas with high levels of radioactivity actually provided any more benefit for the people who frequented them over health spas that didn’t have high levels of radioactivity. Additionally, X-rays haven’t been abandoned as a form of treatment in favor of drugs in all cases. They are used to kill cancer cells and shrink tumors—prostrate cancer is often treated with x-ray therapy—and are administered by radiotherapists. You go on to imply that the reason radiation therapy has been abandoned (which it hasn’t) in favor of drug therapy is because the latter is more profitable, but this ignores the likelihood that drugs are more profitable simply because they provide a better risk/benefit ratio along with a lower cost to administer. You’re ignoring the fact that for many diseases drug therapy is often more effective, poses fewer risks, and is less costly than x-ray therapy would be. Yes, x-rays can be used to kill bacteria and this is part of why there has been a move in the food processing industry to irradiate food as a form of “electronic pasteurization” which, ironically, the public has been largely nervous about accepting for awhile now. But the same reason it’s effective at killing bacteria—it breaks apart the DNA chain preventing reproduction—is also why it’s risky to use as a treatment in humans for bacterial infections whereas antibiotics don’t carry that same risk. Your implication that drugs are advocated over x-ray therapy simply because they’re more profitable is an attempt to raise the scary specter of a conspiracy to deny people access to an effective therapy for purely monetary reasons. This is a popular claim among advocates for alternative therapies, but it’s not a particularly good one.

It’s rather deceptive to compare radon with x-rays—one is a noble gas and the other is an electromagnetic wave—and it’s an oversimplification to imply that they work in a similar fashion. The nucleus of radon has 86 protons and 136 neutrons giving it an atomic weight of 222 and making it naturally unstable with a half-life of only 3.8 days. There aren’t enough neutrons to hold the nucleus together so it progressively breaks down into four relatively short-lived decay products starting with polonium-218 then lead-214 then bismuth-214 and finally polonium-214. Each of these changes emits radiation in the form of alpha or beta particles and gamma rays. Radon gas itself doesn’t chemically react with other matter nor will it form molecules or compounds and isn’t charged so it won’t cling to other matter and can be breathed deeply into the lungs. However, radon’s decay products are charged (polonium-218 has a charge of +2) and thus will stick to various surfaces including the lining of your lungs where it continues to break down. Alpha particles are known to cause DNA damage in the cells of mucous membranes, bronchi, and other pulmonary tissues and that can lead to lung cancer, which is the only disease that radon gas is definitively linked to at the moment.

In a later reply you assert that radon gas is absorbed through the skin and is taken up in fat saturates and that levels return to normal in a few hours. Considering that there aren’t any routine medical tests that can be done to detect radon in human tissues your claim on where it ends up is somewhat suspect. Most of the radon you breathe in is expelled when you breathe out and it is estimated that 90% of the radon you ingest (via water for example) passes through the walls of your stomach and intestines into the bloodstream where it’s brought back to the lungs and exhaled. It is true that radon levels should drop back to normal levels after a few hours after you leave an area with high levels of it and that is largely due to the fact that we tend to breathe most of it out. The fact remains, however, that any area with high levels of radon gas also tends to have high levels of its decay products which tend to stick to lung tissue where they continue to break down emitting alpha particles in the process. These decay products can be detected in lung and bone tissue, in urine, and by a breath test, but the tests aren’t that good at determining accurately how much radon a person has been exposed to.

Your further statements about ionizing radiation and biology sound reasonable enough, but the problem is you’re suggesting that all forms of ionizing radiation are the same and that just isn’t true. There is a big difference between Alpha particles and x-rays in terms of the potential harm they can cause with Alpha radiation being worse by a factor of 20. Yet you keep trying to use studies of x-rays to support your arguments about radon gas which does not produce x-ray radiation at all. That’s like trying to use studies of the health benefits of apples to show how a “Big Mac” is good for you on the basis that they’re both forms of food. Alpha particles are composed of two protons and two neutrons whereas X-rays are high energy photons. Alpha particles have an energy rating of 4 - 8 MeV (million electron-volts) and an atomic mass of 4 thus they interact with matter very strongly making their range very short and very destructive whereas Diagnostic Medical X-rays have a rating of only 200,000 eV (electron-volts) and an atomic mass of 0 so they don’t interact as strongly with matter and their range much is longer and much less damaging. You need lead to stop X-rays, but you only need tissue paper to stop Alpha particles and human skin is an exceptionally effective barrier as well. It’s because of this that alpha particles are only considered dangerous if an alpha emitting material is ingested or inhaled. Which is exactly what you’re doing when you sit in a mine full of radon gas and breathe deeply.

Low doses of x-rays may actually have beneficial effects, but this says nothing about the potential benefits of exposure to low doses of Alpha radiation. In addition to that, the experiments you cited involved the application of x-rays in measured doses which is a far cry from “go sit in this mine for 32 hours and see how ya feel.” Exactly how much of a dose is a 32 hour spell in a radon mine anyway?

Barbara, your response was just laughable. Full of generalizations about radiation and carefully crafted speculation about how it’s “potentially critical” and yet the “specific benefits are not known” which is hardly a ringing endorsement to try it considering the potential negative impact it can have later in life. I believe similar arguments justifying tobacco use were put forth at one time as well and we can see where that got us.

Dr. Gerald Looney, MD, you of all people should know that there is no such thing as a truly “immutable fact” in science. I’ve taken up too much time with Jim’s comments to bother going into the silliness you’ve cut and pasted into your comment. Though I will say you appear to have an apt surname.

Patricia Lewis, you’re not much better than the tobacco industry in my mind. I won’t be surprised when the day comes that you end up being sued by one of your former customers.

I don’t mind, Les, that you’ll have the last word on this.  But before that happens, I would like to answer your question about dose. The dose of a 32 hour “spell” at our radon mine equates to approximately 6 mSv or .6 rads, or .6 rems or .6 Roentgens (about 2x annual background radiation).  My personal exposure?  Equals approximately - because, as you know, radiation measurement equivalents are not an exact - 150 mSv on an annual basis - I’m now into 11 years of radon.  I’d hate you to think that I would not subject myself to at least 25x’s more radon expsoure than our guests.  Note too that communities in India, Iran and Brazil exisit in naturally occuring radiation at levels of 250 mSv with no adverse effects.  Debate speculates that 500 mSv annually may be a threshold.  I’ll also point out that over 30 years ago we were sued by the FTC - and won.  No law suits from guests in 52 years - but then, who would want to own a hole in the ground full of radon?  Over 50% of our guests are annual visitors; another 25% visit every 2-5+ years.  I suppose the other 25% get cured; some will die, and others receive no benefit at all.  This we do know.  And yes, there are double blind studies “Long-term efficacy of radon spa therapy in rheumatoid arthritis - a randomized, sham-controlled study and follow-up” by Pratzel et al; British Jrnl of Rheumatology Vol. 39 Issue 8 (2000) pp 894-902.  This document in full, to be available from our website.  I like your clarity on radiation science. The question is oft asked to define the difference between radon and x-rays - you’ve done it nicely. I apologize to the people I invited to this site, to those who commented in a respectful manner regarding this controversial subject - thankyou for your continued support. I think we all know where the other stands - and that is the aim.  See you all back ont he list.

I was beginning to wonder how long that prattle would go on.  Everyone has a right to his opinion.  This one just sounds like a bad PR campaign for RJ Reynolds.  Maybe they’ll start making ‘filtered’ and ‘unfiltered’ Radon mines for those wishing to meet their demise that much faster.

I’d like to see the waiver one has to sign to go down in one of these mines.  I would imagine it would be very telling about their ‘faith’ in their product.

captcha = ‘geekmom’ Right on!

Les,

You make the same “laughable” error you accuse me of when you basically assume a “potential negative impact it [radon exposure] can have later in life.” That “potential” risk is purely hypothetical.  It’s been estimated from studies of miners exposed to high concentrations of radon during their routine working lives, and the risk-dose relationship was then assumed to be linear and extrapolated to the low dose/low dose-rate region for the convenience of the standard-setting agencies.  It’s not a representation of any known reality.  Harm from high doses of any substance does not establish any potential harm in the low dose region.  That’s just a regulatory convenience.

Barbara

Patricia, I’m impressed that you have an estimate on how much of a dosage 32 hours works out to. The fact that you’ve managed to go 11 years doesn’t mean a whole lot, it’s not like lung cancer is a rapidly developing disease and, honestly, I hope for your sake that it isn’t the way you end up eventually going. My grandfather managed to get away with smoking for around 50 years or so before it killed him. Therein lies the rub: It seems if it doesn’t immediately impact some folks they think there’s nothing wrong with it when the truth is they’re putting themselves at unnecessary risk. I’ll be sure to check out the report in the British Jrnl of Rheumatology as I’d be interested to see if it’s any better than the previous ones mentioned here. As for apologizing to folks you invited to this website, perhaps you should think twice before trying to enlist the aid of others in spreading your misinformation in the future then you wouldn’t need to apologize.

Barbara, you just continue to crack me up.

Well, Les, it doesn’t make any difference if you “buy it” or not. You’re not the first to show such pride in ignorance, to fail to gain information or understanding before ranting, to prattle on irrelevant “facts” as though they were relevant to the issue, to show no intellectual curiosity or integrity, and to be a shill for “govt science” to dupe the gullible. If you wanted double blind studies, you could have asked. I just provided an example of one study in a peer-reviewed journal that refutes everything you had ranted about in the first instance. Case closed. The author’s other papers in the series and refs document that the study was of radon effect. Other medical studies document radon distribution.

You could ask “what health spas?’ but no - and Pat identified three and noted one (and since German unification Bad Schlema in the USSR U ore producing area in Saxony has reopened to great success).

The Roman spas had objective evidence of health benefits before radium/radon - original double-blind studies!? And biological responses and medical studies confirm radon response.

Low dose x-ray therapy (that works by stimulating immune response and other biopositive effects) has been abandoned (although it is used in a few conditions where drugs utterly fail), not talking about radiotherapy - high doses to fry cancers, etc.

X-rays and alpha particles have differences, but the effect/unit energy is not relevant to whether biological responses are similar. All forms of ionizing radiation are ‘identical’ in ionizing atoms/molecules. Biological responses are similar, as they are with heat and many toxins. The effect is primarily in the biology, not in the stressor! (The issue is radiation from radon and its decay products: alphas, betas, gammas and deltas/x-rays, not whether Rn is a gas - that just addresses how it is transported in the body, although your ‘explanation’ of how Rn is transported is just parroting out of date govt “science” misinformation.) So the biological responses to ionizing radiation, internal alphas as well as external gammas/x-rays are substantially the same - adjusting for the “factor of 20” difference in dose “effectiveness” (although that simplistic value isn’t generally accurate either).

I suppose it’s a waste to provide anything in science, and I’ve not bothered - “casting pearls...” comes to mind; but perhaps more like “behind an equestrian statue” will get me off the hook with my swine friends. Anyway, a few sources are at:
http://cnts.wpi.edu:9000/rsh/dd3/searchResult2.jsp?keyword4=2.2.2.4+Radon+treatments

Also, when you get to an abstract on the national Library of Medicine site (PubMed), e.g.:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15133294

Go to the right side and click on “Related articles” for a somewhat more “independent” cut at the data on radon therapy (or search on that term, but you’ll have to avoid the use of radon seeds as a brachytherapy source).

Regards, Jim

Les,

Why do I crack you up?  What’s so difficult for you to understand about the fact that, e.g., a high dose of iron will kill you, but yet, you can’t live without it?  That’s not a complicated concept.  Sunshine’s a carcinogen, yet provides health benefits as well.  Why is that funny to you?

The evidence of the carcinogenic effects of radiation is from high dose/high dose-rate studies (Hiroshima/Nagasaki, the miner studies, etc.), and the theoretical effects are extrapolated downward.  The model isn’t reality, and hasn’t been substantiated.  What’s funny about that?

Barbara

the more things change, the more they stay the same

This thread seems to have taken on almost a religious fanatics.  Let’s disregard all the scientific study that has been done and cling to one tiny element of hope.  I understand that this is a delicate issue for many of your visitors but I can also see how such a ‘visit’ could cause a lot more harm than good.

It’s extremely difficult to deny years of studies done on the miners.  Yes, they were exposed to high dosages so the NCI went back and did controlled studies using low doses and still realized elevated levels of tumors compared to the control group.  They are still performing tests in order to help developers and homeowners deal with this.  That’s what science is about.  You can’t define the solution and write the science to ‘fit’.  We’re seen that tried too many times.

I’m sure that those thousands of miners that have died from fairly low doses of Radon would love to weigh in on this issue but alas, they’ve already done their time in the mine.

BTW - I’d still be interested in seeing that waiver.

Mr. Jenkins, apparently there really ARE immutable things in science since your own personal insight and perspective appear very immutable; and your dogmatism appears to imply, “Don’t bother me with the facts--my mind is made up!” You appear to have an active intellect, perhaps even hyperactive, but your laser-beam invective must hit mirrors and blind you to any quiet contemplation or reflective analysis.  You certainly know how to denigrate anyone who dares question your pejorative dogma.
Perhaps it is your inevitable and unfortunate habit to insult some outstanding students of science and health physics who have the “flaw” of trying to educate the public and to point out to fellow scientists their irrational bias and prejudice against low-level radiation.  I extend to them my sincere sympathy and appreciation for their work.  Because my quotes were based on a priori reasoning, I am unable to see the “silliness I cut and pasted into my comment,” so I wish you would educate me.
Finally, since you have negatively noted my ancient and honorable Irish surname (like Mooney, Rooney, Cooney, etc.) which is also borne by Chief John Looney, leader of the Western Cherokee nation and engraved on his tombstone in Washington, DC at the U.S. Congressional Cemetary.  I close with an ancient Cherokee prayer:  “May I criticize no man until I have walked for a mile in his moccasins.” Until you can comprehend other viewpoints and tolerate honest attempts at dialogue and scientific discussion, your own efforts will be as silly and useless as you claim others’ efforts to be.  This is a shadow over a bright and productive mind, and a needless dilution of and distraction from your own good efforts.  Gerald Looney, MD

A San Francisco company ushered in a craze in radioactive health crocks in 1912, when it was granted a patent for “Revigorator”. This device saturated water with radon and people were advised to drink six or more glasses each day. “Radithor”, a quack radon potion to cure sexual dysfunction and everything else, was introduced in 1925. After several years, people started dying of the effects of this potion. The manufacturer and user of Radithor died 14 years later of bladder cancer. No warnings to the public were ever issued.

Hundreds of thousands of health-conscious Americans drank bottled water laced with radium as a general elixir, known popularly as “liquid sunshine.” Soon, radioactive toothpaste was marketed, then radioactive skin cream. Chocolate bars containing radium were sold as a “rejuvenator.” As recently as 1952, LIFE magazine wrote about the beneficial effects of inhaling radioactive radon gas in Montana mines. Even today, people visit the radon-filled mines and report multiple benefits. However, numerous studies have concluded that the only demonstrable health effect of inhaling radon is lung cancer.

If I want lung cancer I’ll just starting smoking again, I miss the nicotine anyway!

Hey, Spocko, is that a “crock” of radium water?

My favorite is the radioendcrinator:

Male-- Place Radiendocrinator in the pocket of this adaptor with the window upward toward the body.  Wear adaptor like any “athletic strap”, (the cloth label in front).  This puts the instrument under the scrotum as it should be.  Wear at night.  Radiate as directed

Of course, the story ends sadly:

William J. Bailey, inventor of the Radiendocrinator (and Radithor), had great faith in his products and he claimed to use all of them. Bailey, who said he had drunk more radium water than any living man, died in 1949 of bladder cancer at 64 years of age.

Which just goes to show that no matter how much you do to preserve your health, you can still be “cut down” by freak accidents like these.  Tragic.

Hey, Spocko, when you insert images, do you have to host them yourself, or can you just link to them?

capcha “Science”

Ok, that’s just too freaky.  I’m gonna convert to Catholocism and start watching “Crossing Over.”

Jim, the last thing I do is rant on topics I haven’t researched and looking around this site you will see plenty of situations where I have fully stated that I didn’t know enough about a particular topic to comment on it. My comments in this thread have all been based on my understanding of the issues from the research I have read on the topic and I am not naive enough to think that I’m infallible in this regard. I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who visits this site regularly who would claim that I lack intellectual curiosity or integrity. The first several responses you left were hardly convincing in their content and your presentation smacks of every other snake-oil salesmen I have ever encountered and so I admit that my initial reaction to you may have been based on a preconception.

It wasn’t until Patricia Lewis’ second reply that anyone provided anything in the way of a supporting reference specifically with regards to potential benefit from radon exposure and I found the study she cites to be interesting reading. Your follow up reply, however, again fails to impress. It would help your case if you’d drop the “evil government conspiracy” tone you keep adopting as that’s my first red flag that you’re just another crank.

Gerald, you seem to think you’ve got me figured out from a handful of responses in a single thread. That’s a mighty impressive judgment to make considering how little correspondence we’ve had. Have I been a little tetchy in my reply? Absolutely, but then I tend to get a lot of email from folks set on correcting my errant viewpoints that turn out to be quacks and Jim’s initial volley sounded pretty much like the rest of them.

Contrary to what you’re assuming I am not beyond being convinced, but simply providing a small segment from your own personal essay when I don’t know you from Adam’s cat isn’t going to convince me that you have a clue what you’re talking about. As for your surname, other than being an interesting bit of trivia, its pedigree doesn’t really count for much. The closing prayer is somewhat ironic seeing as by then you’ve already criticized me and my “dogmatism.” I have no trouble comprehending other’s viewpoints or tolerating honest attempts at dialog, but I didn’t see any of that here and honestly still don’t.

What I do see is a group showing up and proclaiming that all of the published work is completely wrong and that a known carcinogen is completely harmless and does wonderful things for your body even though we can’t say specifically what those benefits are or how they are brought about beyond some speculation that sounds semi-plausible and then expecting everyone else to roll over and accept it all without question. I also see attempts at demonizing a whole branch of research merely because some of it is from the scary government which only wants to squeeze profits out of poor suffering wretches. Oh, and one MD who wants to dictate what the “immutable facts” are as though they were handed down from divine revelation.

Surely you posses the intellectual integrity to see how that would make for a less than stellar way to start an “honest attempt at dialog and scientific discussion,” or am I assuming too much?

Having said all of that, I have done some more digging and come across some studies that do seem to backup at least some of the claims that have been made. I’m not anywhere near convinced at this point that radon gas at low dosages is either particularly safe or actually beneficial, but I do see the possibility that it’s not as dangerous as some studies suggest. At the same time I’ve come across some other materials that seem to indicate Radon may be involved in other diseases. About the only thing I can say at the moment is that there is a lot of debate out there over this with the general consensus appearing to be that it’s more harmful than beneficial.

As such I’ve dashed off an email to Physicist Bob Park who maintains a newsletter on scientific issues called “What’s New” that I’ve been following for awhile and whose opinion I do trust. With any luck he’ll take some time out of his busy schedule to respond and let me know if I’m off base or not. If it turns out that I am then I will be more than happy to eat crow over it.