Dr. Conca answers the question posed as yes, it seems so. Recent studies on the biological effects of radiation carried out under radiation levels from natural background to essentially zero radiation, demonstrate that the absence of radiation is not good for organisms.
Following experiments with microbes and human lung cells that showed similar results, these new experiments with different bacterial species show that growth was inhibited by the lack of radiation, contradicting the predictions of traditional hypotheses concerning the biological effects of radiation.
There has been an 80-year discussion about the health effects of radiation on humans and other biological organisms. High levels, or doses, obviously have adverse effects, and really high doses can kill.
These results contradict predictions of the LNT hypothesis. The presence of radiation is not necessarily bad and the absence of radiation in not necessarily good. I encourage you to read the complete paper for a detailed technical discussion. (This post is a bit geeky, but it is an important issue given Fukushima and the growth of nuclear power).
Since life on earth evolved in the presence of background radiation between 1 and 10 rem per year (0.01 and 0.10 Sv/year), it appears that life is adapted well to low doses of radiation and does not do as well in its complete absence. But low doses, those less than 10 rem (0.1 Sv) per year, have been extremely difficult to evaluate because their effects are so minor that it is impossible to see any effects in a general population where other every-day adverse health effects overwhelm anything from the radiation. Also, at low doses, all organisms have cellular repair and response mechanisms that can keep adverse health effects from occurring, something that evolved as life evolved.
Good read ...
Resource Portal for I2M Clients, Associates, and Geoscientists
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-