The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Could prolific Nuclear testing since 1945 be linked to increases in cancer?  (Read 900 times)

Offline Airthumbs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 958
  • Personal Text
    • View Profile
There is a youtube video that shows in animated form the nuclear tests conducted from 1945 - 1998.  The link is as follows


After watching this video I had to wonder about various factors.....

The video only shows official tests.  What it does not show are the many nuclear accidents and leaks. 

Given how dangerous even small levels of radiation can be to the human body, at what point could we say there might be a connection? 

As we know many of the tests conducted were above ground and the airborn particulates, that are highly radioactive, would be carried by prevailing winds to certain destinations.   Are there places in the world where cancer rates are higher than average that also happen to be essentially downwind of these test sites?
« Last Edit: 16/10/2015 13:41:06 by chris »


 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4698
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Yes. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/intheworkplace/cancer-among-military-personnel-exposed-to-nuclear-weapons shows how "probability of causation" compensation has been awarded in the USA.

Fortunately the number of attributable downwind cancers is quite small compared with the natural incidence (about 30% of the Western population will express a potentially fatal cancer, and 25% will actually die from it) and the proportion is decreasing. Cancer is principally a disease of old age and the Western population has been ageing at the rate of 4 hours per day since 1945, so with the gradual eradication of infectious diseases, it is a major and increasingly important cause of death.

Away from the restricted areas of test grounds, the residual background radiation dose from weapon fallout accounts for less than 0.5% of our annual exposure worldwide. 85% is natural and an increasing (currently about 13%) amount is medical.
 

Offline Airthumbs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 958
  • Personal Text
    • View Profile
A partial list of non-cancer health effects of human exposure to radiation:

Downs Syndrome
Hydrocephaly
Microhydrocephaly
Cleft Lip and Palate
Epilepsy
Kidney and Liver Damage
Thyroid Disease
Low Birthweight
Increased Infant Mortality
Increased Stillbirth
Genetic Mutations/Chromosomal Aberrations
Spinal Defects
Congenital Malformations


A compilation of radiation Studies Showing Health Effects.....
http://www.nirs.org/radiation/radchart.htm 

This is all actually quite scary!! 
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4698
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
The most significant incidence of these, AFAIK, is in Kerala where there is a high level of natural background α-radiation from thorium sand, which gets into everything. Elsewhere a fetus is exposed to at least 1 milligray of radiation from the natural (indeed essential!) potassium in its mother's body during gestation. The additional dose from nuclear fallout is of the order of micrograys, but there is no evidence of adverse effects of irradiation in utero at less than 50 mGy, and even at that level there is a critical period of organogenesis, outside of which the fetus is significantly less radiosensitive.   
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums