Radiation: Nothing to See Here?
- From: MrSpook <never@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:49:09 -0400
Administration spokespeople continuously claim "no threat" from the
radiation reaching the US from Japan, just as they did with oil
hemorrhaging into the Gulf. Perhaps we should all whistle "Don't
worry, be happy" in unison. A thorough review of the science, however,
begs a second opinion.
That the radiation is being released 5,000 miles away isn't as
comforting as it seems. The Japanese reactors hold about 1,000 times
more radiation than the bombs dropped over Hiroshima.(1) Every day,
the jet stream carries pollution from Asian smoke stacks and dust from
the Gobi Desert to our West Coast, contributing 10 to 60 percent of
the total pollution breathed by Californians, depending on the time of
year. Mercury is probably the second most toxic substance known after
plutonium. Half the mercury in the atmosphere over the entire US
originates in China. It, too, is 5,000 miles away. A week after a
nuclear weapons test in China, iodine 131 could be detected in the
thyroid glands of deer in Colorado, although it could not be detected
in the air or in nearby vegetation.(2)
The idea that a threshold exists or there is a safe level of radiation
for human exposure began unraveling in the 1950s when research showed
one pelvic x-ray in a pregnant woman could double the rate of
childhood leukemia in an exposed baby.(3) Furthermore, the risk was
ten times higher if it occurred in the first three months of pregnancy
than near the end. This became the stepping-stone to the understanding
that the timing of exposure was even more critical than the dose. The
earlier in embryonic development it occurred, the greater the risk.
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 by
environmental insults disturbing normal embryonic development. It is
now established medical advice that pregnant women should avoid any
exposure to x-rays, medicines or chemicals when not absolutely
necessary, no matter how small the dose, especially in the first three
months.
"Epigenetics" is a term integral to fetal origins of disease,
referring to chemical attachments to genes that turn them on or off
inappropriately and have impacts functionally similar to broken
genetic bonds. Epigenetic changes can be caused by unimaginably small
doses - parts per trillion - be it chemicals, air pollution, cigarette
smoke or radiation. Furthermore, these epigenetic changes can occur
within minutes after exposure and may be passed on to subsequent
generations.(4)(5)(6)
The Endocrine Society, 14,000 researchers and medical specialists in
more than 100 countries, warned that "even infinitesimally low levels
of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, indeed, any level of
exposure at all, may cause endocrine or reproductive abnormalities,
particularly if exposure occurs during a critical developmental
window. Surprisingly, low doses may even exert more potent effects
than higher doses."(7) If hormone-mimicking chemicals at any level are
not safe for a fetus, then the concept is likely to be equally true of
the even more intensely toxic radioactive elements drifting over from
Japan, some of which may also act as endocrine disruptors.
Many epidemiologic studies show that extremely low doses of radiation
increase the incidence of childhood cancers, low birth-weight babies,
premature births, infant mortality, birth defects and even diminished
intelligence.(8) Just two abdominal x-rays delivered to a male can
slightly increase the chance of his future children developing
leukemia.(9) By damaging proteins anywhere in a living cell, radiation
can accelerate the aging process and diminish the function of any
organ. Cells can repair themselves, but the rapidly growing cells in a
fetus may divide before repair can occur, negating the body's defense
mechanism and replicating the damage.
Busy schedule? Click here to keep up with Truthout with free email
updates.
Comforting statements about the safety of low radiation are not even
accurate for adults.(10) Small increases in risk per individual have
immense consequences in the aggregate. When low risk is accepted for
billions of people, there will still be millions of victims. New
research on risks of x-rays illustrate the point.
Radiation from CT coronary scans is considered low, but,
statistically, it causes cancer in one of every 270 40-year-old women
who receive the scan. Twenty year olds will have double that rate.
Annually, 29,000 cancers are caused by the 70 million CT scans done in
the US.(11)(12) Common, low-dose dental x-rays more than double the
rate of thyroid cancer. Those exposed to repeated dental x-rays have
an even higher risk of thyroid cancer.(13)
Even properly functioning nuclear plants emit a steady stream of
radiation into nearby water and atmosphere, which can be inhaled
directly or ingested from soil contact, plants or cows milk. Many
studies confirm higher rates of cancers like childhood leukemia, and
breast and thyroid cancer among people who live in the same counties
as nuclear plants, and among nuclear workers.(3)
Beginning with Madam Curie, the story of nuclear power is one where
key players have consistently miscalculated or misrepresented the
risks of radiation. The victims include many of those who worked on
the original Manhattan Project, the 200,000 soldiers who were assigned
to eye witness our nuclear tests, the residents of the Western US who
absorbed the lion's share of fallout from our nuclear testing in
Nevada, the thousands of forgotten victims of Three Mile Island or the
likely hundreds of thousands of casualties of Chernobyl. This could be
the latest chapter in that long and tragic story when, once again, we
were told not to worry.
Footnotes:
1. "Fukushima Daiichi reactors contain radiation equal to a thousand
Hiroshima bombs", Vancouver Observer, March 14, 2011; Ira Helfand,
Robert Alvarez, Ken Bergeron and Peter Bradford (former member of the
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission), on behalf of Physicians for Social
Responsibility.
2. Rosenthal E. Radiation, "Once Free, Can Follow Tricky Path", The
New York Times, March 21, 2011.
3. International Commission on Radiological Protection.
4. Huang YC, Schmitt M, Yang Z, Que LG, Stewart JC, Frampton MW,
Devlin RB, "Gene expression profile in circulating mononuclear cells
after exposure to ultrafine carbon particles", Inhal Toxicol, 2010 May
27. (Epub ahead of print.)
5. Baccarelli A, Wright R, Bollati V, et al, "Rapid DNA Methylation
Changes after Exposure to Traffic Particles." Am. J. Respir. Crit.
Care Med., April 2009; 179: 572 - 578.
6. Zhong Y, Carmella S, Upadhyaya P, Hochalter JB, et al, "Immediate
Consequences of Cigarette Smoking: Rapid Formation of Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbon Diol Epoxides Chem. Res. Toxicol.", Article ASAP
DOI: 10.1021/tx100345x publication date (web): December 27, 2010.
7. "Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: An Endocrine Society Scientific
Statement", 2009.
8. Bartley K, Metayer C, Selvin S, et al, "Diagnostic X-rays and risk
of childhood leukaemia", Int. J. Epidemiol. (2010) 39(6): 1628-1637,
first published online October 1, 2010, doi:10.1093/ije/dyq162.
9. Bailey H, Armstrong B, de Klerk N, et al, "Exposure to Diagnostic
Radiological Procedures and the Risk of Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic
Leukemia", Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, November 2010,
19:2897-2909; Published online first, September 22, 2010.
10. Shuryak I, Sachs R, Brenner D., "Cancer Risks After Radiation
Exposure in Middle Age", JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst Volume102, Issue 21,
Pp. 1628-1636.
11. Berrington de González A, Mahesh M, Kim K, et al, "Projected
Cancer Risks From Computed Tomographic Scans Performed in the United
States in 2007", Arch Intern Med, December 14/28, 2009; 169: 2071 -
2077.
12. Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, et al, "Radiation Dose
Associated With Common Computed Tomography Examinations and the
Associated Lifetime Attributable Risk of Cancer", Arch Intern Med.,
2009; 169(22): 2078-2086.
13. Memon A, Godward S, Williams D, et al, "Dental x-rays and the risk
of thyroid cancer: A case-control study", Acta Oncologica, May 2010,
Vol. 49, No. 4: 447?453.
Source:
http://www.truth-out.org/radiation-nothing-see-here68711
* * *
Brought to you locally by:
MrSpook
=-=
"A classic axiom of propaganda is that people shouldn?t be allowed to
think too much about what the government is doing in their name. After
all, there?s more to life than politics, right? So while the power
group has its cozy little war going on, the people need to have their
attention diverted.
All the strong men of history would have given their eyeteeth to have
at their disposal the number and types of distractions available to
today?s regimes:
- TV sports, its orchestrated frenzy and spectacle
- Super Sunday
- An endless succession of unspeakably boring, inane movies, short on
plot, long on CGI
- The wanton sexless flash of MTV with its uninspired lack of talent,
a study in split second phony images
- Colossally dull TV programs which serve the secondary purpose of
instilling proper robot attitudes into people who have little other
instruction in life values
- The artistic Mojave of modern music, with its soulless
cyber-droning, a constant quest for the nadir of reptilian brain
stimulation, devoid of lyrical competence, instrumental proficiency,
or passion
- The ever-retreating promise of financial success, switched now to
the trappings and toys that suggest success, available to anyone with
a credit card
- Organized superstitions of all varieties, with their requisite
pseudo-spiritual trappings
- The constant dramatization of crimes and 'issues' throughout the
world whose collective goal is the humble and grateful acknowledgement
of 'how good we?ve really got it'
- Dwelling for months on the minutiae of unsupported allegations of
impropriety, preferably sexual, of a celebrity personality
With these noisy, banal distractions the forces promoting the general
decline in intelligence and awareness jubilantly engulf us on all
sides. Media science holds the advantage: as people get dumber and
dumber year by year it gets easier and easier to keep them dumb. The
only challenge is that their threshold keeps getting lower. So in
order to keep their attention, messages have to become more obvious
and blatant, taking nothing for granted."
From: "Programming The Sheep", By Tim O?Shea (2007)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Radiation: MrSpook's retarded trolling glows in the dark (and stinks like the bullshit it is, too)
- From: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
- Re: Radiation: MrSpook's retarded trolling glows in the dark (and stinks like the bullshit it is, too)
- Prev by Date: SGU: "Hope"-ing Volker doesn't burn through his new kidney
- Next by Date: Re: SGU: "Hope"-ing Volker doesn't burn through his new kidney
- Previous by thread: SGU: "Hope"-ing Volker doesn't burn through his new kidney
- Next by thread: Re: Radiation: MrSpook's retarded trolling glows in the dark (and stinks like the bullshit it is, too)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
