Why Radiation Might Actually be GOOD for You | Unveiled

<h4>

Why Radiation Might Actually be Good for You</h4>

Ever since the U.S. dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the issue of radiation has been a major point of uncertainty, interest, and fear. It’s a source of power that could either light up the world or destroy it. But what if our current understanding of the dangers of radiation are… overblown?

This is Unveiled, and today we’re taking a closer look at why radiation might actually be good for you.

Radiation can certainly kill you. Marie Curie - the scientist who discovered radium in 1898 and spent a career studying radiation - died of aplastic anemia in 1934 as a result of her life’s work. More broadly, there are short and long term problems to contend with. The physical impact of radiation is often almost instantly visible, with intense bouts leaving horrible burns on the skin within hours of exposure. In the medium and long terms, it can damage a person’s bowels, nervous system, their heart, and bone marrow. It can mount a relentless, painful and fatal onslaught on the body.

But, still, history shows that humankind has recognized the utility of radiation for far longer than it has its dangers. That’s because radiation can be something of a paradox. For example, although it can cause cancer, it can also be used to cure it. The first use of radiotherapy in medicine occurred just days after the discovery of the x-ray. Doctors immediately understood (and began experimenting with) the use of radiation to treat breast and skin cancers. Marie Curie, herself, became a radiation and x-ray evangelist. During World War One, she created and promoted portable x-ray vehicles - known as petites Curies - to aid in battlefield surgery. And today, radiotherapy remains one of the main treatments for many forms of cancer. But are there also other uses and benefits to radiation, particularly in low doses?

Enter the theory of Radiation Hormesis. In biology, hormesis is the idea that cells can adapt to a persistent but moderate amount of stress. Diets and exercise are both forms of hormesis, for instance. The most commonly understood example, though, is the notion that a person can build up a tolerance or immunity to poison with long-term, low-dose exposure. Tolerance to alcohol and drugs after a prolonged use of either is also a form of hormesis. While another specific demonstration of the phenomenon in action is with snake handlers, who can develop levels of immunity to venom - again with prolonged, long term exposure.

It’s generally held that hormesis was 'discovered' (or, first properly understood) by Mithridates VI, a famously ruthless ruler in the first and second centuries BCE. Mithridates, according to legend, regularly ingested low doses of various toxins to gain immunity to them. But, what’s actually going on here? After all, it isn’t just blind luck that the human body should seemingly behave in this way. Hormesis appears, then, to be an adaptation on a cellular level, the real-time view of evolution in action. The environment introduces stressors, and the body must adapt to survive them, or even to excel within them. In a curious kind of way, it’s as though (in some scenarios) you actually can’t have too much of a bad thing. Therefore, scientists have wondered for decades whether it’s a principle that could also be applied to radiation exposure. And, if it were, then what would the effects be?

Radiation Hormesis has been a theory for some time, but it’s never been the world’s guiding principle. As it currently stands, the United Nations and the United States base their radiation guidance on the Linear No-Threshold (or LNT) Model - which is used to predict the risk of cancer caused by ionizing radiation. In short, the LNT model assumes that virtually any exposure to ionizing radiation does increase a person’s risk of getting cancer, regardless of the dosage. That risk increases proportionately relative to the dose size, but even a little is potentially harmful. In other words: the more radiation you take in, the greater its carcinogenic effect. But here’s the rub: LNT assumes that any and all radiation is bad for you. There is no ‘safety threshold’ for radiation exposure within the LNT structure, at the lower end. LNT was adopted by the UN and the US as their guiding principle for radiation by 1960, and in many ways its cautious approach is still preferred. It’s better to be safe than sorry, especially as we know how devastating radiation exposure can be. But those bodies - the UN and the US, or parts of - have also more recently acknowledged the need for more research. 

Critics of the LNT point out that it’s fundamentally flawed when it comes to lower doses. They claim that the foundational studies leading to LNT took the data and conclusions regarding higher exposure and extrapolated downwards. They assumed that because the chances of getting cancer increase as you take in more and more radiation, they would decrease proportionately with lower amounts of radiation… but, crucially, that the risk would always exist. As it turns out, however, and for proponents of radiation hormesis at least, that may not be true.

New research has raised serious questions about LNT. After the United States dropped atomic bombs in Japan during World War Two, doctors and researchers arrived to treat those who had lived through the bombings. For decades, then, many of the survivors participated in long-term health studies. And, at first, those studies did seem to support LNT. In recent years, though, the results have come under scrutiny. Utilizing modern advancements in cell molecular techniques and radiation biology, researchers are now challenging the LNT model. Our understanding has expanded, with contemporary claims that it’s not necessarily a binary scenario of radiation = bad, no radiation = good. According to one 2019 study, published in the journal “Chemico-Biological Interactions”, it perhaps all depends on context when it comes to Low Dose Radiation, or LDR. The type of radiation, the rate of exposure, the type of tissue and cell that’s been exposed, gender, and species could all be determinative factors.

There are some further proposals out there, though, that don’t just poke holes in LNT. Some, in fact, are claiming evidence of radiation hormesis. For example, in the same 2019 paper it’s said that LDR can activate DNA defense mechanisms in the cell, to issue repairs or to remove what can’t be fixed. Meanwhile, a 2005 study from the University of Toronto (conducted on meadow voles) found that low doses of gamma radiation over time led to a positive effect on stress and immune levels. It was something like a furry inverse of The Incredible Hulk. The argument is, then, that there’s mounting evidence that, under the right circumstances, LDR can have all kinds of beneficial effects. From DNA repair, to immune response, to stress management, and perhaps even to anti-aging. There are still many factors that need to be considered… and, again, it remains a hotly debated and controversial topic, with those against still insisting that there are some major risks involved; that if we underestimate radiation, then we could be in for a lot of trouble. But, alongside that, there’s a real chance that our common assumptions about radiation will be turned on their head within the next decade.

So, what could that look like in our everyday lives? It would begin with the most immediately affected field: medicine. Radiotherapy has already significantly evolved since the 1890s, when doctors would shoot cancer with x-rays largely to just see what would happen. Today, our techniques are much more deliberate, practiced, and tailored for specific cases. For example, there are treatments for prostate cancer that involve implanting radioactive seeds inside the body, directly into the affected area. But the potential benefits of LDR could go further even than that level of care - providing a whole new tool set in the fight. And, as such, surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy could find themselves massively changed amidst a generational revolution. Some medical professionals are already studying LDR as a potential method of cancer prevention, too, as well as its more traditional role as a treatment. So, there could be a future in which LDR therapy is used to protect the human body from carcinogenesis altogether.

If research does conclusively discover benefits from LDR and prove that radiation hormesis is possible, the knock on effects could also be profound. Again, at present, The United Nations, the United States, and indeed most world governments base their regulations and safety guidelines on LNT. Opponents to that reckon that the authorities have seemingly ignored mounting evidence debunking parts of the LNT model, and especially with regard to lower doses of radiation. There are suggestions that the existing policies are too rigid, and are preventing us from making potential breakthroughs. 

To an extent, the fear is real: high doses of radiation are incredibly scary. One common treatment for certain types of radiation poisoning, for example, is known as Prussian Blue… which is literally taking medicine that’s derived from paint. Not especially appealing, but also revealing as to just how unusual and threatening radiation can certainly be. But some of that fear may soon be proved to be, in part, irrational. While it’s unlikely that the U.N. is going to start telling people to take trips to a radiation spa, there could soon be an effort toward reducing our fear of radiation. And that could be a big deal when it comes to, say, nuclear power. 

Broadly speaking, nuclear energy is one of the cleanest forms of energy out there. In some ways, and according to a report by the World Nuclear Association, it has a lower carbon footprint over time than even solar energy does. Unfortunately, infamous disasters like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima have drastically reduced support for nuclear energy. Such as in Germany where, since Fukushima, the country has shut down all of its nuclear power plants, reverting back to more immediately unclean sources like coal. If our seeming collective (and growing) phobia of nuclear energy were then to lessen thanks to a new understanding of radiation hormesis and LDR, then we could also see a major impact beyond medicine - and into the energy sector, as well.

For now, the 2020s and 2030s may very well deliver a thorough upheaval to our world’s understanding of radiation. Low doses, in the right context, could yet revolutionize medicine, if it’s universally found to be safe. In the future, perhaps you’ll be tacking a quick radiation bath onto your yearly physical… or perhaps things will never go quite that far. Nevertheless, pre-emptive treatments could one day become as common as an oil change… and the reputation of radiation could end up totally revamped. That’s what could happen if radiation were good for you… although the debate between LNT and LDR is still far from settled.