Tell some people that the government has determined that they shouldn’t stick a fork into their eye and they’ll do it anyway. Then they’ll claim it actually helps them to see better. And it cured their gout. And their jock itch. And whatever else ails them. The same thing applies to exposing themselves to known carcinogens such as radon gas. In fact, not only are some people seeking out sources of radon to expose themselves to, but other people are charging them good money for the privilege of doing so. Out in Montana there’s at least two “radon health mines” where for an hourly rate you can sit in an abandoned mine and breathe in the radon filled air:
The Montana public health agency “doesn’t encourage (the mines’) use,” said Dr. Todd Damrow of the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Service. “But people are free to use them.”
And they do, by the thousands every year. Many people make annual pilgrimages to the Merry Widow and the Earth Angel mines in Basin, and the Free Enterprise and Lone Tree mines in Boulder.
Owners of the mines dismiss the EPA warnings about radon as “government propaganda.”
“It’s not harmful at all,” said Patricia Lewis, owner of the Free Enterprise Mine.
The article doesn’t state what qualifications Patricia Lewis has for determining that radon gas isn’t harmful in spite of the mounds of studies that contradict her stance. Nor does the article elaborate on what reason Lewis feels the government has for spreading such propaganda about the dangers of radon exposure, but I’m sure her reasons are all based on valid scientific principles and exhaustive medical research, right? Well, she does have a nice list of links to a handful of dissenters on the dangers of radon at her website some of whom do have valid medical degrees and some of the organizations have impressive names (though some of the websites are now defunct), but compared to the amount of contradictory evidence the literal handful of counter-arguments doesn’t hold up well. It certainly doesn’t justify the laundry-list of ailments that they claim radon therapy might be helpful for:
- Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS)
- Arthritis (OA, RA, JRA etc.)
- Asthma
- Behcets
- Bursitis
- Cancer (Breast)
- Carpal Tunnel
- Chronic Pain
- Circulation
- Diabetes Type I & II
- Eczema
- Emphysema
- Fibromyalgia (FMS)
- Gout
- Hayfever
- High Blood Pressure
- Inflammation
- Lupus (SLE)
- Migraine Headaches
- Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
- Osteo Arthritis (OA)
- Post Polio Syndrome (PPS)
- Prostate (BPH)
- Psoriasis
- Rheumatoid (RA)
- Scleroderma
- Sinus
- Ulcerative Colitis
Much like the ever-popular Homeopathy or some practitioners of Chiropractic, it seems like there’s not much radon therapy isn’t effective for if you believe their website. The owner of the other mine is Dwayne Knutzen and he’s got the typical I-was-a-skeptic-at-first story that’s familiar to anyone who pays attention to these things.
“I was like everybody else,” he said. “Radon? That can’t be good for you.”
But the more he researched the health benefits of radon, he said, the more he was convinced of them.
“The only reason I bought the place,” said Knutzen, “is it’s so fascinating. You hear all these bad things. But you can’t ever find anybody who died from it. And there are all these benefits.”
It’s probably true that you’re unlikely to find many death certificates that specifically list radon as the cause of death, but then you don’t normally find death certificates that cite smoking as the cause of death either as in both cases it’s something that tends to affect you slowly over a period of time eventually resulting in lung cancer. In fact, if you’re a smoker the risk increases dramatically.
It’s estimated that around 14,000 deaths a year are associated with radon exposure, though that could range from as low as 7,000 to as high as 30,000. Ironically, we know more about the dangers of radon than we do about almost any other human carcinogen thanks to extensive epidemiological studies of thousands of underground miners carried out over more than fifty years world-wide. The charge that this is all Governmental propaganda doesn’t hold water as these studies have been repeated throughout the world.
- In 1988, a panel of world experts convened by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer unanimously agreed that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that radon causes cancer in humans and in laboratory animals (IARC, 1988). Scientific committees assembled by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS, 1988), the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP, 1987), and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP, 1984) also have reviewed the available data and agreed that radon exposure causes human lung cancer.
Recognizing that radon is a significant public health risk, scientific and professional organizations such as the American Medical Association, the American Lung Association, and the National Medical Association have developed programs to reduce the health risks of radon. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) reviewed the epidemiological data and recommended that the annual radon progeny exposure limit for the mining industry be lowered (NIOSH 1987).—A Physician’s Guide - Radon: The Health Threat with a Simple Solution
But don’t let that dissuade you, a couple of yahoos out in Montana say it’s perfectly safe and they’re willing to charge you $112 for 32 hours of exposure to prove it to you. Hey, they got tons of testimonials from other folks they’ve successfully charged as proof that it works!
A sign above the door reads “Fountain of Youth - Feel Young Again,” a reference to the mine’s radon-saturated spring water that flows from the depths of the mountain. Guests frequently brave the icy 40-degree temperature of the water with hopes of soaking away pain and swelling in joints and to improve circulation. They even splash it in their eyes to improve vision and, some say, cure cataracts. Others drink the water, hoping for relief of bladder and prostate problems, according to Knutzen.
...
“A lot of people take the mud off the wall and rub it on their skin for skin problems,” Knutzen said.
...
Similar inside to the Merry Widow, but with a more cramped, 600-foot tunnel and fewer amenities, the Earth Angel was purchased five years ago by Bill Remior. He charges $2 a day for “treatments” in his mine.A disabled World War II veteran, Remior had visited all the area’s radon mines for 20-some years before buying the Earth Angel.
“I seen what good they did me,” he said. “I figured it was the Good Lord was doing it. I’ve got a weak heart and only half a lung. But I can go good yet. It’s helped me. I seen a lot of miracles come out of here. And I never seen anything wrong.”
Probably the most hilarious comment, though, comes from Knutzen:
“Radon is a colorless, odorless gas,” said Knutzen before leading a tour of his mine. “But when you come out, you register on a Geiger counter.”
He says this like it’s a good thing. Next thing you know he’ll be telling you it’s OK if you glow in the dark as it makes reading books when the power is out a lot easier. Part of the problem, of course, is that radon is a slow killer. If it worked faster then these idiots would kill themselves off in short order and wouldn’t be around to continue to spread their stupidity to other people. It’s like that myth about a frog in a pot of water brought slowly to a boil. So long as the damage is gradual and hard to see then these idiots will continue to expose themselves to the danger. Still, I suppose that’s Darwin’s theory of natural selection at work.
Posted on 08/08/2004 at 03:10 AM 
Posted on 08/08/2004 at 03:11 PM 
Posted on 08/10/2004 at 09:18 AM 
Hollistic Chap
Another serendipitous article, from today’s Sunday Telegraph (UK).
Note that my ‘shill for drug makers’ comment was intended to be tongue in cheek, it is missing the ntended smiley. Sorry about that. The ‘dishonesty’ is just your claim to want/need “proof,” but you get it then make contrary statements. It seems intentional. Maybe not.
Regards, Jim
========================
Nuclear power is fine - radiation is good for you By Dick Taverne
(Filed: 08/08/2004)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/08/08/do0801
.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/08/08/ixhome.html
Oil prices are at their highest for almost 20 years amid ever-increasing concerns that the world faces an energy drought. At the same time, as a signatory to the Kyoto Treaty, our Government is giving financial incentives to those who want to cover the country with giant wind turbines.
Yet, why, with the notable exception of James Lovelock, the inventor of the Gaia hypothesis, do the world’s environmentalists reject nuclear power, which emits almost no greenhouse gases? Because they are frightened of accidents and of radiation emanating from nuclear power stations and nuclear waste. Their fears of radiation are not only widely shared, but they are nourished by official sources and have even become official policy.
The present policies for radiation safety are based on the “linear no-threshold assumption”, which is endorsed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. This is the assumption that even the smallest amount of radiation is harmful and may cause cancer and genetic disorders, and that the risk of harm increases proportionately with the dose.
On this basis, we should aim to avoid any exposure at all. Accordingly, the standards for radiation protection set by the commission have become more exacting and the maximum exposure dose declared to be safe is continually lowered.
The standard measurement of radiation is set in terms of milliSieverts (mSv) per year. In the 1920s, the maximum dose regarded as safe was 700 mSv. By 1941, it was reduced to 70. By the 1990s, it became 20 for occupationally exposed people and 1 mSv for the general population. Some people believe that the maximum exposure dose should be lower still.
Unfortunately, far from safeguarding our health, current safety standards will almost certainly increase the incidence of cancer. The evidence shows that the effect of radiation on human health is not a linear one, but is a J-shaped curve. Exposure starts by being beneficial at low doses and only becomes harmful at higher doses. This effect is known as hormesis.
A low dose of ionising radiation seems to stimulate DNA repair and the immune system, so providing a measure of protection against cancer. The benefit of low doses of radiation in treating cancer have been known for some time and are confirmed by a mass of evidence, particularly from Japan where it has been studied in detail as a result of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Many other examples of the hormesis effect are well known. A bit of sunshine does you good; too much may cause skin cancer. Small doses of aspirin have many beneficial effects; too much will kill you. It also appears to apply to arsenic, cadmium, dioxins and residues of synthetic pesticides, but that is another story.
Epidemiological evidence confirms the hormesis effect of radiation. The prediction that there would be terrible after-effects from the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the survivors and their children was proved wrong. Japanese studies of the life expectancy of survivors who suffered relatively low amounts of radiation show that their life expectancy turned out to be higher than those of the control group and no unusual genetic defects have been found in their children.
Again, a follow-up study of Japanese fishermen who were contaminated with plutonium after the nuclear tests at Bikini found 25 years later that none of them had died from cancer.
After the Chernobyl disaster it was also predicted that the incidence of cancer among those affected by fallout would greatly increase and there would be huge genetic damage to future generations. It was about as bad an accident to a nuclear power station (a badly constructed one) as is likely to happen. Its psychological effect was huge and changed people’s perception of the risk of nuclear energy all over the world.
Indeed, it is constantly cited as an example of the unparalleled threat to health from nuclear disasters. Tragically, it led to 31 deaths, mainly among rescue workers who were exposed to very high doses of radiation. Yet in the areas around Chernobyl the extra radiation to which people were exposed in the nine years following the accident was slight - an increase of about 0.8-1.4 mSv.
In May 2001, in the Ukrainian town of Pripyat, which is now a ghost town after its complete evacuation, the average amount of persistent radiation found was 0.9 mSv a year, five times lower than the level in New York’s Grand Central Station. In parts of southwest France the levels of natural radiation are as high as 870 mSv a year.
There is strong evidence that people exposed to low doses of radiation - amounts 100 times more than the recommended range - actually benefit. The incidence of thyroid cancers among children under 15 exposed to fallout from Chernobyl was far lower than the normal incidence of thyroid cancer among Finnish children.
The death rate from leukemia of nuclear industry workers in Canada is 68 per cent lower than average. Workers in nuclear shipyards and other nuclear establishments in the US and many other countries have substantially lower death rates from all cancers and are much less likely to die from leukemia.
This might be explained by the fact that their health is regularly checked and that only healthy workers are employed. But it corresponds with a mass of other evidence that people who live in areas of unusually high natural radiation, in Japan, China, India and the US, are less likely to die from cancer than a control group.
These facts destroy what are perhaps the strongest objections to nuclear power. They show that the regulations seeking to enforce present, let alone proposed, minimum standards of safety not only cost billions of pounds and have undermined the prospects of our development of nuclear power, but do more harm than good.
It is time that we looked more closely at the phenomenon of hormesis and at the successful Japanese experience of using low-dose radiation to treat cancer. When the evidence is so clear, we should not allow it to be brushed aside by conventional wisdom and ignorance.
Adapted from an article in this month’s Prospect magazine. Lord Taverne’s book, The March of Unreason, is published in November by OUP