Radioactivity's danger overstated?

shortnews ^ | 11/24/2007 | short news

[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.

[patton]

‘Tut mir leid - should have pinged you, since you were mentioned.

[Rembrandt]

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.

[james500]

“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

[Secret Agent Man]

I don’t know. I see a lot of articles about the problems the depleted uranium ammo has done to our own troops.

[GOPJ]

Radiation’s a “weapon of mass panic”. Just walk away - preferably NOT downwind...

[no-to-illegals]

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.

[DBrow]

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.

[DBrow]

“I don’t 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.

[patton]

Would it be worth it to you now, to have the green lights tell you which way to go?

[Secret Agent Man]

Not the tank armor. The ammunition (shells) has depleted uranium in it. The troops breathe in vaporized uranium dust.

[Colinsky]

There’s 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.

[50mm]

Not the tank armor.

Depleted uranium is used for tank armor and shells. It is used because it's much harder than steel.

[donmeaker]

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.

[LibFreeOrDie]

Red-orange Fiestaware!

And do you remember when they had fluoroscopes in shoe stores?

http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/shoefittingfluor/shoe.htm

[Colinsky]

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.)

[ASOC]

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.

[50mm]

Tut mir leid

Fadhb ar bith!

[Arthur McGowan]

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.

[Cvengr]

We have a nice set of orange red Fiestaware, just right for those southwestern hot pepper dishes.

[restornu]

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."