[kensai]

I think Radon exposure is a serious matter, but its concentration in the USA either is probably overrated OR indeed you have a local geological problem. In Europe we even have the tradition of Radon Therapy for certain pathologies in Spa. Of course, one should do these therapies under medical consultation.

https://www.alpentherme.com/en/therapy-health/therapy/radon-...

[ImPostingOnHN]

> How radon works: Cellular repair in the body is stimulated, the number of free radicals is reduced.

Yikes! Not only are free radicals increased, because you're being bombarded with ionizing radiation, but any cellular repair stimulated is because of the cellular damage done!*

I have to assume "the number of free radicals is reduced" is intentionally written awkwardly and in a passive voice, to avoid adding "...after the "radon therapy" stops.

* - And it's not gonna be a net positive!

[kensai]

Many physical therapies work on the principle of the stimulus and some net effects happen after that is stopped. Even fasting diets work like this according to specialists like Walter Longo: the best part happens when you stop the fasting and start eating again. You could argue something similar happens when you finish the certain exposure to radon after a trip to Bad Gastein.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> You could argue something similar happens when you finish the certain exposure to radon

I could, but then I'd be arguing something I don't believe, and have no evidence to support!

I don't know that it would be worth it to entertain a hypothesis that, as far as I can tell, nobody here believes and has evidence to support.

[kensai]

The hormesis hypothesis has not been widely proven, but it has not disproved either. It's still a working hypothesis. And yes, patients sometime work with hypothesized therapies, especially if conventional therapies don't work for them or they get many adverse effects from them.

[ImPostingOnHN]

If I told you that hitting yourself in the dick with a hammer was good for you, would you have as much support and deference for The Schwanzhammertherapie Hypothesis as you do for hitting yourself all over with ionizing radiation? After all, I can't find any studies disproving it.

Here is how Schwanzhammertherapie works: 'cellular repair in the body is stimulated, the number of dick hammerings is reduced'.

[kensai]

Don't be silly by making the conversation ad absurdum. What is your working hypothesis for the "Schwanzhammertherapie Hypothesis"? :)

There's a big difference here between you, acting like a clown, and the scientists or clinicians of yesteryear that formulated the hormesis hypothesis.

[MengerSponge]

In the early 20th century America also used to have lots of radiation therapy providers. It's quackery, and harmful quackery at that.

Just because you have a tradition of something doesn't mean it's effective. Or safe. Or wise.

[kensai]

People with rheumatological diseases beg to differ. I understand nowadays it's a little bit odd, given the more sophisticated technological therapies that exist, but getting exposure to radon in certain calculated doses is how it was supposed to work.

I agree that the mechanism of "radiation hormesis" is kind of weak, but it has not been disproved as quackery either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

[infecto]

Absolutely bunk science with no real evidence supporting. It’s like saying autism is created from vaccines.

A lot of the US has radon exposure. I don’t how people come out saying things like you do but at the end of the day it’s exposure to radiation. I have seen it all, people will say it only impacts children or the elderly. Or that it’s an overblown conspiracy. Radon is radioactive, I am sure there are discussions on safe exposure levels but mitigation is so inexpensive and normalized why risk it.

[kensai]

Not on the same level as autism correlated to vaccines. And radiation hormesis has not been disproved as "bunk science" as far as it is widely known.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

[infecto]

Nothing you have said in this thread has been supported by studies. Everything is a hypothesis or proposal. I would expect if this was real that there would be more concrete evidence over the decades, yet none exist. Maybe it’s not a falsified hypothesis but it’s at best a hypothesis. I am much more into the proven by a study science and medicine and not feelings.

[kensai]

Actually there are many (admittedly weak or low in n) studies in Europe, which show some benefit. I will post some titles later, check this space.

I agree that there are no big prospective studies and probably will never anymore be, because there is really no interest or gain from big pharma. The big time of physical therapies was last century and all studies, at least in Germany, stop by the 90s.

An interesting article to read about the different approaches in Europe and America is this: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2203/dose-response.06-00...

[infecto]

Please don’t I won’t read them. I already saw the overview ok Wikipedia. Some studies that may suggest hormesis, most of them flawed. Everything is either a proposal or hypothesis. Absolutely it should be studied but those radiation spas are bunk science for now.

[kensai]

Prove where is the flaw first. A small or old study is not necessarily flawed. The burden of proving they are flawed falls on you. And no, I care less that they have not been replicated because the community lacks interest. Nobody said the effect is miraculous or similar, to compete with modern medical applications, but certainly they are cheap methods that complement with other general wellness effects of spas.

[kensai]

Bogoljudow VM (1988) The clinical aspectsof radon therapy. Y Phys Med Baln Med Klim (Sonderheft 1) 17: 59-66

Pratzel et al (1933) Wirksamkeitsnachweis von Radonbädern im Rahmen einer kurortmedizinischen Behandlung des cervicalen Schmerzsyndroms. Phys Rehab Kur Med 3: 76-82

And I found many more particularly from a certain Gunther R who has published a lot in Germany between the 70s and 90s with minor studies referenced. As said before, this is a dying tradition and no one cares to redo the experiments with better conditions, unfortunately. But until proven otherwise, it's all we have.

[infecto]

Thank you for proving my point. These are at best a hypothesis that no global body has approved. Is the LNT model overly strict? Probably. But is there strong evidence that low doses are beneficial? Nope.

[kensai]

No, you have proven my point. There is no strong evidence and IT WILL NEVER BE cause it's like trying to make a new study for a drug that has its patent expired. Are you willing to sponsor studies with your own money? Cause nobody else will.

Unfortunately, we are stuck with the little evidence there is from the last century when it was the heyday of balneological applications. However, these little studies we have, even with few patients is better than nothing and certainly there is also not enough proof that these patients have been harmed, if doing radon therapy according to modern standards of exposure.

As mentioned before: the linear extrapolation of the risk from high doses of radiation to low doses assumed by the LNT model greatly overestimates the risk of harm, and ignores the potential benefits. Low doses of radiation have been found to stimulate growth (Stebbing 1982), DNA repair (Kondo 1998a and 1998b), antioxidant action (Feinendegen 1987; Pollycove 1998), and immune response (Liu et al. 1987). Other studies have shown that cancer rates actually decrease in populations exposed to low levels of radiation beyond normal background radiation (Bogan 1998; Cohen 1995; Dissanayake 2005; Hattori 1997; Kondo 1993; Mifune 1992). The overestimation of risk by the LNT model is considered important by hormesis advocates, because its cautious perspective prevents patients from receiving low-level ionizing radiation treatments, such as radon, which might help them. Moreover, if radon levels were held to the standards mandated by the EPA and other agencies following the LNT model, the costs of residential radon abatement would be extraordinarily high (Macklis and Beresford 1991; Thomas and Goldsmith 1995).