No, low dose radiation will not cure diabetes. But it seems to show promise for fighting some of the complications of diabetes:
Within the last few years, LDR has shown promise in combating the complications of diabetes. Studies have found that diabetic rats show faster wound healing when dosed with low levels of radiation. And other rodent experiments have found that radiation at very low doses can prevent kidney damage, one of the most common long-term complications of diabetes. __ DiscoverMag
These beneficial effects of low dose radiation may be related to an immune-stimulating effect.
Despite the fact that high doses of ionizing radiation are immunosupressive, many studies have indicated that low doses radiation may stimulate the function of the immune system. In 1909 Russ first showed that mice treated with low-level radiation were more resistant against bacterial disease (Russ VK 1909).Later in 1982 Luckey published a large collection of references supporting immunostimulatory effects of low doses of ionizing radiation (Luckey TD 1982). __ Intro to Radiation Hormesis
We all know that high doses of radiation can be deadly, immunosuppressive, and carcinogenic. But some research suggests that low doses of radiation actually reduces cancer risk — at least for some cancers.
Radiation hormesis implies stimulation by ionizing radiation. Cancer induction is the most feared action of large doses of ionizing radiation. Therefore, cancer mortality rates will be used to illustrate radiation hormesis in humans. Large doses of ionizing radiation increase cancer mortality rates ; this is considered to be harmful. Since small doses decrease cancer mortality rates, low dose irradiation is beneficial. Although small doses of radiation can stimulate cell an cancer growth, the stimulation of different components of our complex immune system more than compensates for simple cellular effects. The net effect is a decreased cancer mortality. __ TD Luckey . . . Biopositive Effects of Radiations
The three sources linked above present a positive picture of the benefits of low dose radiation. This PNAS review presents the opposite perspective, supporting the conventional Linear No-Threshold model. The PNAS review offers some useful caveats. But rather than presenting a clear research path forward, the review appears to be meant to shut down enquiry into possible beneficial effects of low dose radiation.
The difference between science and religion, is that science is always looking for new ways to study enigmatic phenomena. When faced with a puzzle, a true scientist wants to attack it from all angles, rather than shutting down discussion and research into the puzzle.
The real world presents several opportunities to study low dose exposures to radiation. Frequent fliers and flight crews are exposed to low level radiation with every flight. Persons who work with radioactive materials and x-rays are likewise exposed to low doses of radiation, and must wear dosimeters to gauge cumulative dose levels. “Radiation tourists” enthusiastically expose themselves to radiation inside mine shafts, and as for astronauts? Fuggiduhbowdit! These — and many more examples — are natural experiments in humans that should yield interesting findings, when studied.
Exposure of pregnant mice to “Chernobyl radiation” (doses and types of radiation encountered by the bulk of humans living near the site of the 1986 nuclear accident), did not harm the newborn mice. And the researchers found that later doses of radiation did less harm to the mice’s DNA health and levels of white blood cells than were seen in untreated mice. __ Could Small Doses of Radiation Be Good for You?
This is not to suggest that low dose radiation should be given to everyone — including children and pregnant mothers. That is already being done in the natural world, and is essentially unavoidable. I am suggesting that there is an enigma here that should be much more thoroughly studied — despite resistance from the faux environmental movement and its pet scientists, wherever they may be.
When a group of scientists gets together and says, “This looks interesting, let’s study it!” they are acting like scientists. When a group of scientists gets together and says, “This is interesting, but we think the science is kind of settled, you know, and er, we can imagine theories and build models that tell us what we want to hear, and we think maybe it should be left alone . . .” they are acting like ideologues and religionists.
This “mum’s the word” attitude exhibited in the PNAS review linked above reminds me of the “Oh, let’s not study it” attitude exemplified by so many climate scientists, when confronted with a hypothesis that challenges the climate apocalypse theory. “Shut up, they explain.” “The science is settled, the debate is closed.” Except the science is not settled, and the debate is far from closed.
Modern attitudes of political correctness which suppress particular areas of scientific research, will inevitably give way to alternative, more permissive attitudes in the future. When currently-suppressed areas of research are finally studied carefully, we will look back and exclaim, “how stupid we were to ignore all of this!” And it is true — political correctness applied to scientific research is stupid.
We are living in a dumbed down world of accelerating dysgenic fertility. For now, there are still plenty of smart people capable of cutting through the crap of political correctness. They need to wake up from the consensual mass delusion. The sooner the better.