Skip to comments.
Radioactivity's danger overstated?
shortnews ^
| 11/24/2007
| short news
Posted on 11/24/2007 7:30:58 PM PST by Flavius
A number of studies conducted at the sites of some of the worst radiation incidents in history have concluded that the danger from radiation isn't as great as was previously believed.
Deaths from radiation incidents including the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan in WW2 and Russian nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl were in the hundreds, not tens of thousands. The risk of genetic deformity was also lower than expected.
(Excerpt) Read more at shortnews.com ...
TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: nukes; radiation; radioactivity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-81 next last
1
posted on
11/24/2007 7:30:59 PM PST
by
Flavius
To: Flavius
Uranium- it ain’t just for breakfast anymore.
2
posted on
11/24/2007 7:31:45 PM PST
by
BipolarBob
(Yes I backed over the vampire, but I swear I didn't see it in my rear view mirror.)
To: BipolarBob
Go eat your bowl of lead, and we’ll discuss this later.
3
posted on
11/24/2007 7:32:46 PM PST
by
bannie
To: Flavius
Bout time, now where can I order me some of them radium suppositories?
4
posted on
11/24/2007 7:33:28 PM PST
by
cripplecreek
(Only one consistent conservative in this race and his name is Hunter.)
To: Flavius
I did here somewhere that the rate of certain cancers among survivors of Hiroshima and/or Nagasaki was remarkably low. I think the belief was that the dose of radiation which had been received had acted as a preventative chemotherapy treatment.
I have no idea if there's any validity to that, and no, I wouldn't want to sign up for the treatment.
5
posted on
11/24/2007 7:34:41 PM PST
by
ClearCase_guy
(The broken wall, the burning roof and tower. And Agamemnon dead.)
To: Flavius
Radioactivity is good. It’s a treatment against cancer.
6
posted on
11/24/2007 7:36:07 PM PST
by
familyop
(cbt. engr. (cbt.)--has-been)
To: 50mm
7
posted on
11/24/2007 7:36:08 PM PST
by
patton
(cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
To: cripplecreek
Title for new terrorist movie, a la Strangelove:
"Uranium - the Other Yellow Metal", or
"How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Mahmoud and his WMDs".
To: The_Media_never_lie
9
posted on
11/24/2007 7:40:06 PM PST
by
cripplecreek
(Only one consistent conservative in this race and his name is Hunter.)
To: The_Media_never_lie
How 'bout:
"The Radiation That Doesn't Kill Us Only Makes Us Stronger."
To: Flavius
—IIRC, Dr. Edward Teller put it in perspective when he stated that he got more radioactive exposure flying to visit Three Mile Island than anyone did from the released radioactive material-—
11
posted on
11/24/2007 7:42:23 PM PST
by
rellimpank
(--don't believe anything the MSM tells you about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
To: Flavius
there goes polonium-210’s future.
To: cripplecreek
13
posted on
11/24/2007 7:48:36 PM PST
by
cripplecreek
(Only one consistent conservative in this race and his name is Hunter.)
To: Flavius
Radioactivity's danger overstated?Unless you're a smoker, or eat too many cheeseburgers or drive an SUV or ..........
14
posted on
11/24/2007 7:56:24 PM PST
by
umgud
(the profound is only so to those that it is)
To: Flavius
To: Flavius
There’s been a lot written about how low-dose radiation exposure can be good for you. It turns out those healing springs known since antiquity were good because of the background radiation in the rocks, not the waters.
16
posted on
11/24/2007 7:56:57 PM PST
by
sinanju
To: sinanju
we are the children of the sun
17
posted on
11/24/2007 7:57:50 PM PST
by
Flavius
To: patton
apropos...Yes, why drop the information? In reference to what? Is this a subtle way to ask us not to panic?
18
posted on
11/24/2007 7:57:56 PM PST
by
GOPJ
(Hillary "tricky Dick" Nixon/Clinton. - Stiff a waitress - lie about it. Plant questions - lie more)
To: familyop
Radioactivity is good. Its a treatment against cancer.Yeah, it works by killing living cells. It's "good" when targeted at a group of cancer cells - not so good when targeted at healthy cells or people for that matter.
19
posted on
11/24/2007 8:03:23 PM PST
by
GOPJ
(Hillary "tricky Dick" Nixon/Clinton. - Stiff a waitress - lie about it. Plant questions - lie more)
To: GOPJ
50mm remarked a few days ago, he was hesitant to handle DU rounds, for fear of rad count.
I pointed out on that thread, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still both going concerns, in spite of having been nuked into the stone age.
My point was, perhaps some fears are exagerated.
20
posted on
11/24/2007 8:04:16 PM PST
by
patton
(cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
To: 50mm
‘Tut mir leid - should have pinged you, since you were mentioned.
21
posted on
11/24/2007 8:06:43 PM PST
by
patton
(cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
To: Flavius
Yesterday was the one year anniversary of the death of the retired Soviet spy whose drink had been poisoned with radioactive materials. I guess, in his case, the dangers of radiation were not overstated.
22
posted on
11/24/2007 8:13:57 PM PST
by
Rembrandt
(We would have won Viet Nam w/o Dim interference.)
To: Flavius
“Ra-di-a-tion. Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it’s bad for you. Pernicious nonsense! Everybody could stand a hundred chest x-rays a year. They ought to have them, too.” - J. Frank Parnell in Repo Man
23
posted on
11/24/2007 8:16:57 PM PST
by
james500
To: Flavius
I don’t know. I see a lot of articles about the problems the depleted uranium ammo has done to our own troops.
To: patton
Radiation’s a “weapon of mass panic”. Just walk away - preferably NOT downwind...
25
posted on
11/24/2007 8:47:55 PM PST
by
GOPJ
(Hillary "tricky Dick" Nixon/Clinton. - Stiff a waitress - lie about it. Plant questions - lie more)
To: james500
I have had liberals tell me, America should take all radioactive nuclear waste from the nation’s nuclear reactors and distribute that nuclear waste to all universities for study and observation to measure the effects for a generation. I laughed, and now this article, so now I shutter with the thought of, has the nuclear waste been delivered? For if I am to believe the article, I have to believe the liberals wanting to distribute the nuclear waste among the universities for their experiment may have already taken place, and many a brain has been fried. I believe I will avoid all universities until more clarification, on the truth of this nuclear matter, comes to this forum.
26
posted on
11/24/2007 8:48:22 PM PST
by
no-to-illegals
(God Bless Our Men and Women in Uniform, Our Heroes. And Vote For Mr. Duncan Hunter, America! TLWNW)
To: Flavius
Indeedy. Look at the BIER reports. 10 REMS of exposure increases your cancer threat by 1%, according to the latest. That’s perhaps 2 abdominal CAT scans, and scads of “chest x-rays”, and 40 hours of plane flight.
And look up Radiation Hormesis, the theory that some exposure may be beneficial. We live in an environment with a fair amount of natural radiation, it would be no surprise if we adapted to it and used it to our benefit.
Then there are all the Fiestaware plates out there.
27
posted on
11/24/2007 8:50:46 PM PST
by
DBrow
To: Secret Agent Man
“I dont know. I see a lot of articles about the problems the depleted uranium ammo has done to our own troops.”
It’s cheaper to run a publicity campaign than it is to re-engineerer the armor on your tanks.
28
posted on
11/24/2007 8:52:17 PM PST
by
DBrow
To: GOPJ
Would it be worth it to you now, to have the green lights tell you which way to go?
29
posted on
11/24/2007 8:52:48 PM PST
by
patton
(cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
To: DBrow
Not the tank armor. The ammunition (shells) has depleted uranium in it. The troops breathe in vaporized uranium dust.
To: sinanju
Theres been a lot written about how low-dose radiation exposure can be good for you.
It's similar, in a way, to sunlight. Too much exposure to sunlight can burn you. Moderate exposure to sunlight gives you a tan, which subsequently protects you from intense exposure.
Probably there's something about moderate exposure to radiation that gives you a radiation "tan" that protects you.
31
posted on
11/24/2007 9:07:59 PM PST
by
Colinsky
To: Secret Agent Man
Not the tank armor.Depleted uranium is used for tank armor and shells. It is used because it's much harder than steel.
32
posted on
11/24/2007 9:08:17 PM PST
by
50mm
(Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist - G. Carlin)
To: ClearCase_guy
Studies also looked for radiation effects in following generations. Found none, to the stated level of confidence. There was a slightly higher rate of leukemia, but when you look at many different factors, you would expect some to be higher than average.
Yes, the researcher was suprised, but unlike some, was honest.
33
posted on
11/24/2007 9:08:45 PM PST
by
donmeaker
(You may not be interested in War but War is interested in you.)
To: DBrow
To: 50mm
Depleted uranium is used for tank armor and shells. It is used because it's much harder than steel.
No, it's not because uranium is harder. Uranium is much more dense. The density of steel is about 8 (water = 1), the density of lead is 11.35, and the density of uranium is about 19.
So each square inch of the surface is subjected to more than twice the impact energy of a steel projectile. (Or twice the resistance.)
35
posted on
11/24/2007 9:18:45 PM PST
by
Colinsky
To: 50mm
The density of U exceeds that of armored steel.
I and many of my mates handled DU rounds on the Nellis Range complex - cleaning up after the A 10 AT&E. NO one of us (I keep in touch with more than a few) have shown any ill effects.
OTOH, my wife grew up Central Utah, downwind from the Nevada Test Site and had lost fully half of her graduating classes (of 1972) by 1986 to various cancers (Lung, thyroid, bone, ovarian, etc). As always, YMMV.
36
posted on
11/24/2007 9:24:18 PM PST
by
ASOC
To: patton
Tut mir leid Fadhb ar bith!
37
posted on
11/24/2007 9:31:09 PM PST
by
50mm
(Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist - G. Carlin)
To: Flavius; ClearCase_guy
Deaths from radiation for those near the center of the atomic blasts were high. Then, there is a ring around the blast sites where deaths were lower than normal. Farther away, deaths were normal. So there is a dose of radiation, even from the atomic bombs, that lowered the incidence of cancer.
The fact is that almost everything that will kill you, in a high enough dose, is actually good for you if the right dose is found.
To: DBrow
We have a nice set of orange red Fiestaware, just right for those southwestern hot pepper dishes.
39
posted on
11/24/2007 9:37:54 PM PST
by
Cvengr
(Every believer is a grenade. Arrogance is the grenade pin. Pull the pin and fragment your life.)
To: Flavius
The research includes work done by GSF Research Center for Health and the Environment in Neuherberg, Germany -- Europe's largest radiation protection institute -- for the European Union's Southern Urals Radiation Risk Research project, and by the U.S. National Cancer Institute, as well as a U.S.-Japanese epidemiological study.
"For commendable reasons, many critics have greatly exaggerated the health risks of radioactivity," Albrecht Kellerer, a Munich radiation biologist, told the newspaper. "But contrary to widespread opinion, the number of victims is by no means in the tens of thousands."
40
posted on
11/24/2007 9:41:37 PM PST
by
restornu
(Improve The Shining Moment! Don't let them pass you by... PRESS FORWARD MITT)
To: LibFreeOrDie
Yep, I recall the ‘perfect fit’ sizing machine at Sears getting shoes. Used to play with it using my hands when nobody was around. Funny part is I went on to spend 30 years in Radiology.
41
posted on
11/24/2007 9:42:56 PM PST
by
Westlander
(Unleash the Neutron Bomb)
To: Flavius
I agree somewhat, but many of the deaths do take decades to happen. Naval personnel that were stationed at Hawthorne during WW II have had a cancer rate that is more than five times normal.
42
posted on
11/24/2007 9:47:22 PM PST
by
editor-surveyor
(Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
To: familyop
"
Radioactivity is good. Its a treatment against cancer." If you really believe that, I'd like to invite you to one of my realestate seminars...
43
posted on
11/24/2007 9:49:29 PM PST
by
editor-surveyor
(Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
To: familyop
Been under a Varian?
44
posted on
11/24/2007 9:55:21 PM PST
by
Westlander
(Unleash the Neutron Bomb)
To: Westlander
No. But it looks like fun! ;-)
45
posted on
11/24/2007 10:04:24 PM PST
by
familyop
(cbt. engr. (cbt.)--has-been)
To: patton
I'm pretty sure I read that Queen Elizabeth handled a piece of plutonium, to feel the warmth the metal generated on "its own".
She's still living, and that probably occurred over 50 years ago.
To: Flavius
Radioactivity ain’t fun. Just ask the Russian children born with no legs and three arms near Chernobyl.
To: ASOC; Monkey Face
"OTOH, my wife grew up Central Utah, downwind from the Nevada Test Site and had lost fully half of her graduating classes (of 1972) by 1986 to various cancers (Lung, thyroid, bone, ovarian, etc). As always, YMMV."Yep. My sister (freeper monkey face) and I are Downwinders, too, and grew up in Central Utah during the entire decade of the Fifties. We all have ovarian and endocrine/thyroid problems, and I am a breast cancer survivor. We were given potassium iodide tablets in school for years, monthly, as I recall. "Chocolate" flavored, 1 tablet for little kids, 2 for older students.
48
posted on
11/24/2007 10:39:53 PM PST
by
redhead
(VICTORY FIRST, THEN PEACE)
To: familyop
49
posted on
11/24/2007 10:42:11 PM PST
by
Westlander
(Unleash the Neutron Bomb)
To: redhead
Cool. Did they have almonds in them?
50
posted on
11/24/2007 10:43:24 PM PST
by
Westlander
(Unleash the Neutron Bomb)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-81 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson