Tour Rules About

Idea

Prolonging human lifespan by reducing the background radiation exposure

Image credit: https://www.pexels.com/photo/photo-of-gas-masks-3591394/

jnikola

jnikola Oct 05, 2020

Please leave the feedback on this idea

Originality

Is it original or innovative?

Feasibility

Is it feasible?

Necessity

Is it targeting an unsolved problem?

Conciseness

Is it concisely described?

Bounty for the best solution

Provide a bounty for the best solution

Bounties attract serious brainpower to the challenge.

In what amount is the background radiation responsible for DNA damage and human health? 

Physics defines radiation as energy transmission in the form of waves or particles. It can be electromagnetic (UV, visible light, microwaves, radio waves, etc.), particle (the notorious alpha, beta, and gamma), acoustic and gravitational.    

Every day, we are exposed to different sources of background radiation. Although it varies by location, time, and other factors, the amounts are generally high. For example, annual human exposure to ionizing radiance summary states that artificial sources of radiation (medical, testing, fuel, consumer items, etc.) account for approx. 55 % of the total human exposure, while inhalation of air, ingestion of food and water, cosmic and terrestrial radiance account for the other 45 %.    

Imagine if we set up an experiment on fast-dividing bacteria in radiation-shielded environments where all/different sources of radiation are blocked/allowed. Would the bacteria living in "radiation-free" have a lower rate of DNA-damage and mutations?

Can we affect longevity by incorporating radiation-shielding materials in our walls, clothes, and skin-care products?

[1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5637100/

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

radiation longevity dna mutations

1

Creative contributions

Missing out on hormesis

Darko Savic

Darko Savic Oct 05, 2020

A while ago I talked about this idea with a few people, including David Sinclair. I was told that there were some experiments done where zero radiation proved to be worse than no radiation. I would imagine it had to do with missing out on the benefits of hormesis due to low radiation.

Please leave the feedback on this idea

jnikola

jnikola4 years ago

I believe it could be true. I did some research and found that statement (https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q10453.html), but I would like to see the publications. 

Please leave the feedback on this idea

Add your creative contribution

General comments

ByShubhankar Kulkarni

Studying the causal network of the hallmarks of aging

ByJamila

A Fecal Microbiota Transplant to Treat Aging

ByShubhankar Kulkarni

Dialysis for aging: Removal of SASP

ByJamila

Avoiding blue light exposure for a healthier lifespan

BySpook Louw

Fast food fitness

ByJamila

A Device That Monitors Your Sleep and Wakes You After X Hours of Sleep

ByDragan Otasevic

Rejuvenation dialysis through the placenta (parabiosis experiment)