I'm going to tell you one thing about cancer:

[PCIntern]

It is NOT simply about exposure to agents, whether they be chemical or radioactive. It's also about host susceptibility: genetic and environmental. There is a "heritability" factor which is: "A measure of the degree to which the variance in the distribution of a phenotype is due to genetic causes. In the broad sense it is measured by the total genetic variance divided by the total phenotypic variance. In the narrow sense it is measured by the genetic variance due to additive genes divided by the total phenotypic variance." People and populations have certain resistance factors or lack certain resistance factors to disease and although we discuss all this stuff from a statistical standpoint, where I come from, from a humanistic, altruistic standpoint, ALL people have value, not just those who fall on the right side of a distribution curve.

To say that this situation is not all that bad is to overlook the horrors of death by cancers which attack organ systems including but not limited to the pancreas, bowel, lung, and reproductive organs, not to mention brain, esophageal, and liver. As I posted a week ago, all this cumulative radiation is going to lead to higher morbidity and mortality rates, and I don't care if you receive a paycheck from the clean air council in your city or from the Pro-nuke group, you or your family are going to be affected directly and indirectly by the spread of radioactive materiel. It may never reach our shores, but the horrors of dealing with widespread cancer diagnoses in Japan and the surround will in fact be legion. This is not shouting "fire", this is the absolute truth of the matter.

You can parse all the language you want, but I'll tell you one thing: if I were a medical student in Japan, I would enter a residency in oncology and get ready for the big bump in cases which will be presenting, starting rather soon. If you think this isn't going to happen in real life, and think that if you read statistics published by governments about how relatively few people are affected, go right ahead. You won't be able to alter the fact that there will be untold suffering from this Event, and that it will affect those people over there for generations to come.

[jpak]

1. Sorry - only happy talk allowed

Everything is below acceptable limits

No immediate threat

yup

[freshwest]

50. Don't worry, the crew will show up here and say it doesn't matter, must-have-nukes.

[Buzz Clik]

2. I doubt you'll get much dissent to this post.

Environmental disasters result in health issues. It happens every single time.

[elocs]

3. Wow, one big paragraph is really hard to read.

I assume you posted this to actually be read.

[PCIntern]

5. sorry...point taken. thanks! n/t

[elocs]

13. Nicely done. Much easier to read. Thank you. n/t

[roguevalley]

31. I have this awful feeling that if they don't cork this genie that

a great nation is over. Maybe not completely but how can you live and not have your population die off with this coming at them all the time? And Japan was having problems with their birthrate anyway. They were giving incentives for children for years. Poor Japan. This is so awful. Its like Bladerunner: The Prequel.

[Dappleganger]

33. It is a real tragedy, but honestly Japan has survived worse and came through it.

What is owed to them is real, measurable, responsible data from a variety of scientific sources.

[kristopher]

44. LIke this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=751288&mesg_id=753453

[roguevalley]

61. that is all that can be hoped for.

[King_David]

I agree

Japan better start increasing the capacity in their Cancer centers.

[FLPanhandle]

4. Maybe or maybe not.

The data so far doesn't support your "horrors of dealing with widespread cancer diagnoses in Japan and the surround will in fact be legion" statement.

It could turn out to be that way, or it may not.

Based on the information you and I have right now, there is no way to scientifically support your doomsday cancer scenario.

[PCIntern]

6. WHAT?

It's less than one month since exposures began. I rest my case.

[FLPanhandle]

7. You haven't built a case

You have a scenario without hard data to support it.

Listen, I'm not pro-nuke, but just a bit anal about people saying "This is absolutely going to happen" with so little backup information.

The reality is we don't really know how this will all turn out. Maybe a few more cases of cancer, maybe 100's of thousands. If you've got some hard data to absolutely say it'll one or the other, please share it.

[PCIntern]

8. See...

I don't HAVE to build a case...it's already been done. Those military exposed to radiation have/had much higher degrees of cancer and death than any control population, those exposed to atomic bombs on the periphery did as well, hell, Marie Curie died of radiation exposure, those who licked the brushes to paint radium dials on watches died of radiation poisoning. If there's radiation, there's an increase in morbidity and mortality. Sorry, but that's the truth. Little spikes cause little spikes and grotesque increases in radiation cause grotesque spikes in morbidity and mortality. The fact that governments and industry try to cover it up does not change the truth. And there is a Higher order of Truth in life. Sorry about that...

[FLPanhandle]

9. So you've got nothing to backup your particular doomsday cancer scenario for Japan

Other than military exposures and Marie Curie?

You proved my point. We don't know how this particular situation will play out because we don't know all the variables yet (max exposure, numbers, time exposed, etc).

You've just got your opinion of how it will turn out without anything to back it up beyond your distrust of government numbers. Maybe you'll be right, or maybe you'll be wrong. However, you haven't really made a strong case for your prediction. Sorry.

[PCIntern]

10. You didn't make a point..

you stated a BS conclusion with no knowledge of how this works. Just b/c it hasn't happened yet, does not mean that it isn't going to, and IMO, it shall. It's like getting hit by a train and just b/c they haven't found all your parts yet, doesn't mean that you're not dead. these people are in trouble, they know they're in trouble and are themselves posting on their websites that they are worried. If you're not worried, GREAT! Have a nice day!

[FLPanhandle]

11. "Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it isn't going to"

Nor does it mean it will.

Of course I'm worried about it.

I just wish people would backup their predictions a lot better than you have.

Have a nice day.

[Sal Minella]

14. Just for starters, you might want to check into the wild spike in

birth defects and neonatal mortality in the resident population of areas where the United States used depleted uranium in their weapons.

I can say "When I hit my thumb with this hammer, it's going to hurt" based on past experience, and I feel I need no "backup data" to prove the assertion to anyone who doesn't believe me.

Have a nice day.

[FLPanhandle]

22. You do realize that cancer is a bit more complicated than hitting your thumb with a hammer

Since you feel no need to provide any data, then you really aren't any better than the OP.

I'm not saying things will be fine either. I'm saying I don't know what how big the outcome will be of the plant problems. Guess what, no one knows.

[Sal Minella]

34. Guess what, people who have done a little research on the topic

can make a damn good guess.

[FLPanhandle]

38. You are right in that it's a "guess"

Time will tell if it's a good one or not.

[Knight Hawk]

67. A damn good guess is

just that a guess.My experience with scientists,and I have some,is that they are VERY careful in making predictions .They usually like a lot more information than the average lay person currently has about this event.

[spooked911]

77. not to mention Fallujah and before that Basra

and the Gulf War syndrome

[Dappleganger]

24. In agreement with you.

This is all new territory, to say the least. There's not even begun to be enough data to "make a case" for anything yet. There are many, many causes of cancer and those need to be accounted for as well. For someone with a medical background to begin making summary judgment (drawing conclusions) without a significant amount of data to me is irresponsible.

[Zoeisright]

12. THANK you.

Well stated, common sense, and a rational response to this problem. I mean, these people who think there's nothing wrong are absolutely blind.

[FLPanhandle]

23. BTW, I'm not saying nothing is wrong.

I'm saying no one knows what the impact will be. There isn't enough hard data to conclude.

The original poster may be correct or he may be wildly wrong. You don't know either because no one knows.

It's not that hard of a concept to grasp.

[Dappleganger]

25. +10000 for reason.

I hate nukes and what happens when they fail. Be that as it may, my faith will be placed in SCIENCE and and not HYSTERIA.

[LiberalAndProud]

40. Nor will we ever know.

Correlation /= causation is the problem here. Cancer rates will go up, but hasn't that been the trend?

We will never know how many lives were truncated due to this disaster because there is no way to trace mortality to this specific event. Am I wrong?

[CanSocDem]

80. Good point.

Apparently ignored, but certainly pertinent. I think in this argument, assumptions prevail.

.

[fascisthunter]

30. I wish they were right

[Tesha]

35. I'm sorry, but to me, you seem to be arguing "la la la, can't hear you, my fingers...

are in my ears!"

There's is not a scrap of doubt that what PCIntern
has said is correct: the rise in cancers is propor-
tional to the rise in doses in ionizing radiation.
Plus there's no "threshold" below which ionizing
radiation is harmless. And there's no doubt that
at least some Japanese have received large doses
and many, many more have received and will continue
to receive small doses.

How many more cancers will this cause? No one knows.
And it will be hard to tease-out the radiation-
induced cases from all the cases that "would have
happened anyway", especially with the pro-nuclear
lobby raising as much smoke and doubt as they will
be able to for the next several decades.

But there's no doubt at all that more cancers
will occur among the affected population.

Tesha

[FLPanhandle]

36. Not in denial at all.

I'm not saying the OP is wrong. I'm not even saying there won't be more cancers because of this.

I am saying that there is no data to conclude that there is going be "legions" of cancer. No one knows if there will be a small or catastrophic rise in cancer cases.

Maybe it's just my science background that makes me cringe at absolute statements like in the OP without looking for something to back it up. I guess I should avoid emotional based topics in the future. I get no satisfaction from emotional arguments.

[MelissaB]

41. You can start here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x707285

[freshwest]

52. Sorry about that there. I have a friend who's a downwinder and been fighting to live for years.

[unapatriciated]

72. We were "downwinders" in the fifty's

My sister's grave (leukemia) is a reminder of that experience, not to mention all the autoimmune diseases in my family. It took the government decades to admit their part in the health problems of many who lived downwind of their nuclear test,

[kristopher]

43. Yes there is.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

In all cases when comparing the territories heavily contaminated by Chernobyl's radionuclides with less contaminated areas that are characterized by a similar economy, demography, and environment, there is a marked increase in general morbidity in the former. Increased numbers of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

<snip>

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations. Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination. Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups. From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

[azul]

15. A little too late: Hiroshima, Nagasaki.

They were test subjects. They have probably more cancer data than anyone. They are as prepared as can be and know what to expect.

Somehow they chose nuclear power, as did the rest of those with it. Other countries are fighting and conspiring to get it.

It is military power interests dove-tailing with the energy power industry that puts this threat and risk in our neighborhoods and onto international negotiation tables.

Our data came from such tests as my father's sister's husband's army unit that was exposed to an atomic bomb. He was the last survivor to die, all died from cancers. Don't know if they were volunteers or ordered to stand the test. The official US story at the time was that there was no threat from A-bomb fallout.

[Dappleganger]

16. Ok, but let's remember that you're a dentist.

It's understood that you mean well and give mouth x-rays for a living each week, but otherwise this is just speculation.

[Sal Minella]

17. I suggest googling "depleted uranium birth defects" in images

for photos that go considerably beyond any "speculation" on PC's part.

Many of the photos are from Iraq, where the U.S. used depleted uranium in weapons.

[BrookBrew]

28. Then google the WHO reports on DU in Bosnia. 10 years of data, not as ogerish

as scary pictures but a very thorough analysis of the impacts of DU as a radiation emitter and toxic heavy metal.

[Sal Minella]

37. In my uneducated opinion, ten years is not long enough for such a

study.

Cellular anomalies occur at a much higher rate of speed during gestation than the cell-replacement rate in mature adults.

So DU as a radiation emitter has a much more immediate effect on the fetus than on the mature adult. If you think the pictures are scary, that's the point. If you think I am an ogre, I don't care.

[BrookBrew]

39. Yes, to scare people is the point for some mongers here. It is pretty low

to try and manipulate emotions of people based on fear than present them data collected and analyzed by an Independent body of scientists.

DU as a toxic heavy metal has more immediate impact on mother and child than as a radiation source.

Here got that link. Short on scary pictures, lots of real science.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/
http://www.nato.int/du/reldocs.htm

[kristopher]

45. You lecturing on what "science" is? That's rich.

Bet you still claim only 60 people died from Chernobyl. Note well the first 2 paragraphs.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

In all cases when comparing the territories heavily contaminated by Chernobyl's radionuclides with less contaminated areas that are characterized by a similar economy, demography, and environment, there is a marked increase in general morbidity in the former. Increased numbers of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

<snip>

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations. Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination. Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups. From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

[Inspired]

18. WTF?! Dentists do a lot more than give mouth x-rays for a living.

There's a lot of scientific knowledge in PCINTERN's head. How condescending!

I'll go out on a limb and say that he knows more about cell structures, etc., than I ever will.

[Dappleganger]

21. Ok...

and I am a two-time breast cancer survivor and had a thyroidectomy over two years ago, but would never put my hope in a dentist to give me advice about what were the causes. My point is that his speculation is not much different than anyone else here on this board.

[Inspired]

29. Well, I'm sorry that you've gone through so much.

I wouldn't go to a dentist for advice on breast cancer either. I don't think PCINTERN would suggest anyone do so.

[Dappleganger]

32. Thanks.

No, I wouldn't think he would--but his conclusions aren't based on real data. If that is the case then he hasn't shown us what that is.

[Junkdrawer]

19. All Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause (Some) Cancer.

...

Specifically, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows members of the public to get 100 millirems or mr (1 milliSievert or mSv) per year of radiation in addition to background. The BEIR VII report (page 500, Table 12-9) estimates that this level will result in approximately 1 (1.142) cancer in every 100 people exposed at 100 mr/yr which includes 1 fatal cancer in every 175 people so exposed (5.7 in 1000).<4>

The risk of getting cancer from radiation (in BEIR VII) is increased by about a third from current government risk figures (FGR13): BEIR VII estimates that 11.42 people will get cancer if 10,000 are each exposed to a rem (1,000 millirems or 10 mSv). The US Environmental Protection Agency Federal Guidance Report 13 estimates that 8.46 people will get cancer if 10,000 are each exposed to a rem.

...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x713927

[BrookBrew]

27. Correct, the sun causes many cancers. You will get 15mrem

on a long flight. Airline Employees make lots of those a year.

Here is the ENTIRE document from the NRC.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html

cancer in populations near plants..

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/nuclear-facilities

[flamingdem]

20. Doesn't most cancer take decades to develop?

This seems to be what let's corporations off the hook..

Are there cancers that are more quickly developing especially due to exposure of the type of radiation we're seeing in Japan?

[BrookBrew]

26. Depends on how much and how long a person is dosed..

radiation exposure causes specific cancers that can present quickly in populations that dont generally have them. Lukemia and thyroid cancer in children for example are abnormal beyond a given number a year in a population. Post hiroshima and nagasaki data shows this as does data from the ukraine.

[MelissaB]

42. K&R

Even our own government has covered up radiation studies: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x707285

People get sick and people die.

[felix_numinous]

46. The controversy surrounding the accuracy of information

comes from a lack of TRUST. Look on another thread and see that scientists are being gagged from releasing information about dead dolphins. If the administration, or the NRC, or these corporations had a history of disseminating information in a calm, accurate way AND had a history of respecting human rights there would not be so much fear. THEY have created a problem by not educating and explaining vital life saving information to the public, and by with holding information from war veterans, as well as citizens exposed to radiation and toxins within the US.

So all of the snark coming from educated people here, we can do with out it. Please HELP us to understand the situation in ways we can understand without ridiculing people who are not in the field. Just a request.

Thank you PCintern for working toward increasing our understanding of radiation exposure.

[kickysnana]

48. +1

[crickets]

49. +2

[Pacifist Patriot]

79. +3

[felix_numinous]

47. duplication

[Lucinda]

51. I wish you were wrong.

But I know you aren't.
And each cancer case touches so many lives.
Friends...family. Those who develop cancer wont be it's only victims.

[pam4water]

53. The guys who did the human genome mapping were on Charlies Rose. They said only about 5% of cancers

were from heredity factors. One of them was a cancer survivor.

[riverbendviewgal]

54. Cancer is no simple disease

I watched my son who had GLIOBLASTMA MULTIFORME brain tumor die at age 26. His dad died 18 months later at 54. He had Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. They were diagnosed 2 months apart. 3 years of fighting their fight and watching them slowly go. They fought bravely and with humor and positiveness but they died.

The one thing to be grateful about was they got every treatment they could get. No denials and it cost us NOTHING.
because we live in Canada

[tavalon]

55. You are a good man

And I can tell this is hurting you just as it's hurting so many of us.

[Faygo Kid]

56. On a personal note, I am losing a former boss and friend to that awful disease.

He's been fighting it for more than a year. There is no fighting now; just acceptance. I doubt he will live the week.

He was read into the Congressional Record last week for his contributions. In 1994, I lost another beloved boss and friend to the disease. The American Bar Association has an award named for him. http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/initiatives_awards/awards/franck.html

And then there was my dear friend Dave. Taken in 1997 by brain cancer. Sharp, hard working, compassionate, left two small children (now grown) and a wonderful wife. The hardest worker of all of us; he would have been a CEO with ethics. We did nuts things together in the 60s-70s. He didn't make it to 45. Damn this disease. In his honor:

[PCIntern]

57. I'm so sorry...

the pain, suffering, and life-disruption for everyone associated with an individual is immense. People often don't realize UNTIL IT HAPPENS TO THEM in many cases, just how horrifying this all is. I used to feel that it was from lack of experience with the disease, but more and more, from what I see, many people, not most, not all, just don't give a damn about others. When it happens to them and theirs, then it's a tragedy of epic proportions...maybe. People are just weird...I've treated many people with all types of cancers and it is so draining for me...and I'm at the periphery in most cases.

[bertman]

58. Thanks for the enlightenment, PCIntern. REC. nt

[Sirveri]

59. cost benefit and risk analysis is more complicated than this.

Yes more radiation increases your risk of cancer, but by how much, and for what benefit is also important.

You take around 300 mRem a year from natural and man made sources. Is it worth it to take another 10 mRem a year for electrical power generation? Does coal produce more and spread more to the environment? Is it worth worrying about a .001% increase in cancer risk from Fukushima? I live next to a refinery and a natural gas fired power plant that increase my risk of cancer more than that. I accept that risk increase because I enjoy the benefits of what both those items do. I need gasoline, and I prefer it to be cheaper, same with electricity.

Will people near a nuclear plant take 10 more mrem per year than otherwise, generally no, will they around a coal plant, or a refinery, or some of these factories, yes, because they dump as much as they can into the environment and their owners constantly strive to eliminate regulations that would prohibit them from dumping more.

Can we convert totally to solar and wind, sure, but we won't. The political reality is that I just saw three solar plants in the southern Californian desert fall through recently, as the population grows we will need more electricity and coal is cheaper.

[PCIntern]

60. this is understood...

my point is/was that when you get BLASTED with radiation, it's not OK...if you don't need to get irradiated, you don't. We don't take a single radiograph more than we have to...that's the rule. I could make a case and say that everyone gets a full mouth series once every 2 years, but that's ridiculous and in general, unnecessary. so we don't do it even though it's "not that much radiation". By minimizing amounts, we minimize disease. when you have to be irradiated, then you have to - I'm not saying that we're not gonna get irradiated, of course we are. i'm simply saying that you can't just add stuff up and then say, well, it's under an arbitrary threshold so it doesn't matter at all. Of course it matters.

[Sirveri]

63. Yes, and in the nuclear industry this is called ALARA.

As Low As Reasonably Achievable.

I don't think anyone is saying it doesn't matter (other than right wing morons like Ann Coulter), but that it's so low as to not be worth running around worrying about. It's not like we can actually do anything to minimize our exposure further.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

64. If you continue with the genetic argument, eventually you'll find they'll

find a gene connected to poverty!!

Our genes do give us some susceptibility -- and we should pay attention to the ill

among us -- like the canary in the bird cage.

Especially when we know that everything that negatively impacts our bodies, impacts our

brains first!!

Meanwhile, the question seems to be the damage we've done to our IMMUNE SYSTEMS --

and we certainly didn't do that to ourselves!!

Like all other animal life on the planet, the human animal is suffering capitalism's

exploitation of and attacks on nature! It's a suicidal system!!



The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

[spanone]

65. my grandmother died in 1961 of cervical cancer...

i remember as a youngster thinking, when i get older this disease will be gone...

well, i'm much older and it's fucking everywhere.....

we've been nuking ourselves for over fifty years....

i need both hands to count the CLOSE friends who are struggling or who have died with this endless disease in the last year

our species may be phasing itself out....and not slowly

[lunasun]

66. See ads up north here about the Gulf area being safe and you can eat shrimp again when u visit

There are so many health threats around us now beyond the natural disasters that humans always had to bear

[Knight Hawk]

69. A large amount of

the shrimp consumed in the United States is farmed in Asia and shipped here.Living in Florida I only eat "wild" shrimp.Never eat farmed fish either .Canned "wild" salmon is MUCH safer than fresh farmed fish.

[Lithos]

68. You are right and wrong...

Cancer is far more complicated than you describe. That is why, like radiation, they use statistics to describe it.

However, I totally agree with you that Cancer will be a significantly greater health concern for Japan from now until several generations into the future. Though if I were wanting to help people, I think a nutritionist and water technologist would probably have greater impact than an oncologist. Most of the long lasting effects will be from radiation entering from the food and water supplies which will need much tighter scrutiny. An oncologist, alas, will only be after the fact. (Excuse the language, can't say it tactfully)

L-

[robinlynne]

70. and that there is absolutley no reason on earth for the existence of nuclear power plants.

period.

[trud]

74. robinlynne

You prefer Exxon Valdez? BP? Both have done far more and far more lasting damage to the planet that the Japanese nuclear situation has, or Three Mile Island, which is now totally clean after ten years.

The only nuclear power situation that's caused significant damage is Chernobyl, because the Russians cheaped out on a containment vessel. This is the same type of mindset that results in giant rivers of toxins in China, and oil tankers breaking apart. A well designed and well built nuclear reactor is infinitely better than oil or coal.

[robinlynne]

81. SOLAR power!!!! In the mohave desrt alone, there is enough solar to power this entire country.

Add wind and geothermalal, and whatever it is they are doing with waves, and you dont need exxon or nuclear.
We simply do not need this crap.

there is NO reason for it an longer. electric cars have done wonders for years and years. Solar is far more advanced than we are aware of. etc. etc.

[avaistheone1]

71. Didn't Einstein himself think it was pretty stupid to use something as dangerous as nuclear power to

heat water in order to produce energy?



K&r

[trud]

73. Sure, facts make no difference.

After Three Mile Island, the PA Dept. of Health tracked 30,000 nearby residents for 18 years and found NO increase in cancer rates. But we don't let little items like that deter us from fear-mongering.

[PCIntern]

75. Of course they did...

it was almost the only area in the entire USA which did NOT have an increase in cancer rates over the last 30 years. Weird.

...and the air was safe to breathe at the WTC site...

any more pronouncements from government?

[FLPanhandle]

76. Facts and data vs. emotions & perceived government conspiracies.

The emotional don't need facts, don't even want the facts, and won't believe them if you provide them.

The emotional brain isn't wired that way.

[Hubert Flottz]

78. K&R