0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Children are 10 to 20 times more sensitive to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than adults, fetuses are thousands of times more so.
One x-ray to the pregnant abdomen doubles the likelihood of leukemia in the baby.
Interesting Allan. So you doubt her numbers, if I understands you right?
Long-term trends in incidence for leukemias and brain tumors, the most common childhood cancers, show patterns that are somewhat different from the others. Incidence of childhood leukemias appeared to rise in the early 1980s, with rates increasing from 3.3 cases per 100,000 in 1975 to 4.6 cases per 100,000 in 1985. Rates in the succeeding years have shown no consistent upward or downward trend and have ranged from 3.7 to 4.9 cases per 100,000 (2).
For childhood brain tumors, the overall incidence rose from 1975 through 2004, from 2.3 to 3.2 cases per 100,000 (2), with the greatest increase occurring from 1983 through l986. An article in the September 2, 1998, issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute suggests that the rise in incidence from 1983 through 1986 may not have represented a true increase in the number of cases, but may have reflected new forms of imaging equipment (magnetic resonance imaging or MRI) that enabled visualization of brain tumors that could not be easily visualized with older equipment (3). Other important developments during this time period included the changing classification of brain tumors, which resulted in tumors previously designated as “benign” being reclassified as “malignant,” and improvements in neurosurgical techniques for biopsying brain tumors. Regardless of the explanation for the increase in incidence that occurred from 1983 to 1986, childhood brain tumor incidence has been essentially stable since the mid-1980s.
On the other hand, now, what are fission products?
But what I really expect to make a direct impact would be us restricting our population. We should be able to notice that in one generation, with each generation after whipping this Earth into a better shape. All without a war.
So it is clear that a single nuclear accident widely offsets any "gains" obtained by using a nuclear plant instead of a coal plant.
The Aberfan disaster was a catastrophic collapse of a colliery spoil tip in the Welsh village of Aberfan, near Merthyr Tydfil, on 21 October 1966, killing 116 children and 28 adults. It was caused by a build-up of water in the accumulated rock and shale, which suddenly started to slide downhill in the form of slurry.
Yes Alan, and I agree on that we, as a species, don't seem to worry overmuch for consequences, when developing and trying out new technology. We seem to have an innate trust in our ability to survive, combined with an innate ability to look the other way when evidence start to compile for something not being that smart, as we first thought.
That's one point.Another is what background radiation we expect ourselves to be comfortable with over a thousand years, as some short time scenario.
A third should be the way radioactive dust builds up in concentrations through biological accumulation, if it works the same way DDT and other toxins does it's 10 X 10 X etc, accumulating for each part of the food chain. And when I die its journey starts all over again. What I mean is that it will be in circulation for a awfully long time.
A fourth should be at what level of radiation we need to start worrying."Guidelines on exposure to low doses of radiation have largely been based on estimated risks from models using data from Japanese survivors of the atomic bombs, where radiation exposures were brief and very much higher. As a result, there have been some long-standing uncertainties about the extrapolation of these risks to low radiation doses.
The researchers conclude that the size of the increased risk of childhood leukaemia with natural gamma-ray exposure is consistent with these models and supports their continued use in radiation protection. The results of the study contradict the idea that there are no adverse radiation effects, or might even be beneficial effects, at these very low doses and dose rates.
A new medical concept has emerged, increasingly supported by the latest research, called “fetal origins of disease,” that centers on the evidence that a multitude of chronic diseases, including cancer, often have their origins in the first few weeks after conception
It is now established medical advice that pregnant women should avoid any exposure to x-rays, medicines or chemicals...
Seems I was wrong?Questioning the idea of a x-ray doubling the cancer risk?