それとも、死なずにそそまま地獄で働くのでしょうか？

同じ内容を別な投稿でコメントしたが、検索しても出て来ないので、再掲。

＞年間およそ100 mSvを下回るの放射線量において，委員会は，確率的影響の発生の増加は低い確率であり，またバックグラウンド線量を超えた放射線量の増加に比例すると仮定する。

委員会は，このいわゆる直線しきい値なし（LNT）のモデルが，放射線被ばくのリスクを管理する最も良い実用的なアプローチであり，“予防原則”（UNESCO, 2005）にふさわしいと考える。

委員会は，このLNTモデルが，引き続き，低線量・低線量率での放射線防護についての慎重な基礎であると考える（ICRP, 2005d）。

＞国際放射線防護委員会の2007年勧告　２００７年３月 主委員会により承認

http://www.icrp.org/docs/P103_Japanese.pdf

まあ、普通に考えれば、損傷回復機構を持つ生物でLNTが科学的におかしいのは明らかだから当然だが

もっと具体的なデータによる検証が見たいね

せめて、その後のモデルの検証状況でも出せばいいのに

http://www.see.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp/topics/media/1120.html
日経新聞電子版（2015年2月2日掲載）の「科学記者の目」に真鍋勇　

http://researchmap.jp/read0211942/
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.0096.pdf
Reaction Rate Theory of Radiation Exposure and Scaling Hypothesis in Mutation Frequency

Yuichiro Manabe, Issei Nakamura, Masako Bando
(Submitted on 6 Jan 2014 (v1), last revised 10 Jun 2014 (this version, v2))
We develop a kinetic reaction model for cells having irradiated DNA molecules due to ionizing radiation exposure. Our theory simultaneously accounts for the time-dependent reactions of the DNA damage, the DNA mutation, the DNA repair, and the proliferation and apoptosis of cells in a tissue with a minimal set of model parameters. In contrast to existing theories for radiation exposition, we do not assume the relationships between the total dose and the induced mutation frequency. Our theory provides a universal scaling function that reasonably explains the mega-mouse experiments in Ref.[W. L. Russell and E. M. Kelly, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. {\bf 79} (1982) 542.] with different dose rates. Furthermore, we have estimated the effective dose rate, which is biologically equivalent to the ionizing effects other than those caused by artificial irradiation. This value is 1.11×10−3 [Gy/hr], which is significantly larger than the effect caused by natural background radiation.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.0981v2.pdf
Radiation Exposure Theory Comparison of data on Mutation Frequencies of Mice

Yuichiro Manabe, Masako Bando
(Submitted on 1 May 2013)
We propose Radiation Exposure Theory (RET), a mathematical framework to estimate biological damage caused by irradiation. This is an extension of LDM model which was proposed in the paper [Y. Manabe et al.: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 81, 104004(2012)]. The theory is based on physical protocol, 'a stimulus and its response'. It takes account of considerable response including mutation, cell death caused by outer stimulus, as well as biological functions such as proliferation, apoptosis and repair. By taking account of biological issues, namely a variety of preventable effects, which is characteristic feature of living object. RET can explain various data which simple LNT does not reproduce. As one of the characteristic features of RET, we propose a scaling law, namely all the data point with different dose rate irradiation are predicted to lie on the universal line if the variables, the biological damage function as a function of time development after artificial irradiation starts are converted to renormalized ones. The above scaling law can be compared with experimental data. We adopt the accumulated experiments performed by so-called mega mouse projects. It is found that their data points are converted into a universal scaling function and are in reasonably agreement with the prediction of RET

正しいと思うのなら、自分で毎日1マイクロシーベルト浴びて安全性を証明したらどうだ？
余裕で細胞が自己修復してくれるらしいから、何の心配もいらないだろう。

＞The number of genomic mutations in a
population of bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus)
increased to the 12th generation after the catastrophe
(from 1986 to 1991) despite a decrease
in background radioactivity (Ryabokon’, 1999).

＞ The offspring of female bank voles (Clethrionomys
glareolus) captured in the contaminated
territories and raised under contamination-free
conditions showed the same enhanced level of
chromosomal aberrations as the contaminated
mothers (Ryabokon’ and Goncharova, 2006).

＞The frequency of mutations through several
generations in both somatic and germinal
cells of house mice (Mus musculus) remained significantly
higher after irradiation as compared
to nonradiated descendants (Dubrova et al.,
2000).

＞The rate of chromosome aberrations and
embryonic lethality noticeably increased for
more than 22 generations of bank voles (Clethrionomys
glareolus), whereas the whole-body absorbed
dose rates decreased exponentially after
1986 (Goncharova et al., 2005).

＞After 20 weeks of exposure in the 30-km
zone the incidence of lung neoplasms in laboratory
mice (Mus musculus) was significantly
greater (Table 10.19).

＞There was a decreased density of endotheliocytes
in various parts of the brain in
laboratory mice (Mus musculus) after they had
lived in the 10-km zone for 1 month (Pelevyna
et al., 2006; Nazarov et al., 2007).

＞There was increased sensitivity to viral
infections in laboratory mice (Mus musculus) after
they had been in the 10-km zone (Savtsova
et al., 1991).

＞There was a significantly increased frequency
of tumors in laboratory mice (Mus musculus)
experimentally inoculated with tumor
cells after they had been in the 10-km zone
(Savtsova et al., 1991).

＞ Laboratory rats (Rattus norvegicus) kept in
the 10-km zone from 1986 to 1993 were found
to have (Pinchuk and Rodionova, 1995; Serkiz
et al., 2003):
• Decreased numbers of bone marrow
cells, peripheral blood leukocytes, and
myelokaryocytes.
• Hypochromatic anemia, leukocytopenia
(onset during the third month of being
in the radioactive zone), granulocytopenia
with very high levels of eosinophils, and
eosinophilia.
• Increased numbers of abnormal cells (huge
hypersegmented neutrophilic leukocytes,
cells with fragmented nuclei, cells with
shaggy chromatin structure, cytoplasm
nuclear inclusions, and multinucleated
lymphocytes.

＞After being in the 10-km zone for 3
to 6 months, laboratory rats (Rattus norvegicus)
developed significant mitotic growth activity
(sometimes accompanied by an increase in the
number of bone marrow cells) and then had a
subsequent decrease in mitotic activity. Similar
processes were observed in wild murines living
in the 10-km zone (Serkiz et al., 2003).

これは間違い（再生能力という言葉もおかしい）

幹細胞に限らず、分化した細胞もダメージを蓄積すると癌化するが、

それが修復によって抑制されることを無視したLTNは間違いで修正すべきだというのが、miuceデータに基づくモグラの指摘だ

さらに脳のようにほとんど分化・分裂しない（それでも再生能力がないわけではない）細胞でも、遺伝子損傷を修復すればダメージから回復できる

物理学者ならくだらんこと言ってないで放射線無毒化の方法を発明しろ！！

きちんとBEIRレポートを読むんだな。
すでに、もぐら叩きモデルは完全に否定されている。

だから御用医学者にすら相手にされていないのだ。

甲状腺被曝、高精度で推計　原発事故とがん、解明に活用
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20150323-00000010-asahi-soci

あまりもう長くないだろう。

いま避難地域から避難しているのは間違っているとでもいうのか？
言ってみろ！

そして、そもそも、あんたの「期待」とは違って、
「あまりもう長くないだろう」
ってのは、原子力ムラの命脈がもう長くはないんだと。

人が感じることを聞くのはもどかしいだろ
自分たちで体調の変化を自分たちで確認できる！
人体実験をお勧めします

＞あと何ヶ月、あと何年で原子力村がどうなるんですか。

なに言ってんの？
私は23で、21氏の言ってる趣旨を汲み取って説明したんだよ！
ほんっと、呑み込みの悪い。
そんなこと言って、相手が何か具体的に言ったら、また「○○年後に
検証してみましょう。」ってか！（爆）

だいたい、「あまり」と言っているのに、

＞あと何ヶ月、あと何年で

と問うこと自体、日本語がわかっていない！（苦笑）

それより、
「聞くけど、放射線に危険性はないとでもいうのか？
どうなんだ！？
いったいどのぐらい浴びたら危険だというのか？
科学的には閾値はないんだけれどね。

いま避難地域から避難しているのは間違っているとでもいうのか？
言ってみろ！」
ってんだ！！！！！！！