What is the Impact of Radiation on Children Living Near Chernobyl?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the impact of radiation exposure from depleted uranium (DU) on children and civilians, particularly in conflict zones like Afghanistan. The Uranium Medical Research Centre has reported the presence of U236 in the urine of Afghan civilians, indicating exposure to artificial uranium. Experts like Dr. John Gofman emphasize that there is no safe dose of ionizing radiation, which can lead to genetic mutations and cancer. The conversation highlights the need for political action and public awareness regarding the health risks associated with DU and other radioactive materials.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of ionizing radiation and its biological effects
  • Familiarity with depleted uranium (DU) and its uses in military applications
  • Knowledge of the health implications of exposure to radioactive materials
  • Awareness of historical nuclear testing and its environmental impact
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the health effects of ionizing radiation on children
  • Explore the implications of depleted uranium in military conflicts
  • Investigate the findings of the Uranium Medical Research Centre
  • Learn about the political activism surrounding nuclear waste management
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for health professionals, environmental activists, policymakers, and anyone concerned with the long-term effects of radiation exposure on vulnerable populations, particularly children in conflict zones.

  • #31


Originally posted by chroot
man-made radiation exposure is, except in places like Chernobyl, entirely negligible when compared to the natural background.... While it's not proof that you're insane, the fact that virtually everyone else on this forum thinks you are is telling.
Though I hesitate to use the word "insane" (I'm not a psychologist), its always bizarred to me how people can ignore facts like this one. Its a very simple fact, irrefutable, and he/she completely ignores it. I'd really like to know if h/she just doesn't understand it (its a pretty simple concept though), understands it but doesn't undersand the implications, thinks its a lie, etc. That would be a good insight into what's going on inside theroyprocess's head. Thats why I keep asking the sun question:
Are you terrified of the Sun?
The only response I got suggests, h/she doesn't understand the question.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #32
On Topic

Radiation and Depleted Uranium Weapons:

WARNING: Graphic pictures of deformed babies.

http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
theroyprocess,

I think your newly-found target for paranoia, depleted uranium, is one of first sensible beliefs you've expressed here. I agree whole-heartedly that depleted uranium is an environmental and physiological hazard. I also wish it weren't used.

On the other hand, I strongly doubt that the authors of your alarmist flash animation are being fair to their audience. No sources were listed for any of their figures. In addition, flashing pictures of deformed babies, with absolutely no evidence that they are actually demonstrably a result of depleted uranium exposure -- or even are from the right time periods, or the right places -- delivers a blow to their credibility. My bet is that not a single image used in that animation can be conclusively shown to have anything to do with depleted uranium.

- Warren
 
  • #34
Warren,

If you look through this thread (or maybe it's another one nearby in MKaku.org Forum) you'll see that this isn't the first time theroyprocess has posted that link.

She didn't answer any of the questions asked of her following the other posting(s) either.

Let's see what luck you have.
 
  • #35
Originally posted by chroot
I think your newly-found target for paranoia, depleted uranium, is one of first sensible beliefs you've expressed here. I agree whole-heartedly that depleted uranium is an environmental and physiological hazard. I also wish it weren't used.
How much worse do you consider it than lead?
 
  • #36
Originally posted by russ_watters
How much worse do you consider it than lead?
Not a whole lot worse. I wouldn't want to have vaporized lead all over my house either.

- Warren
 
  • #37
Originally posted by chroot
Not a whole lot worse. I wouldn't want to have vaporized lead all over my house either.
I guess the main difference then is its easier to vaporize uranium?
 
  • #38
Originally posted by russ_watters
I guess the main difference then is its easier to vaporize uranium?
Well, yeah -- uranium is pyrophoric. Lead is not.

- Warren
 
  • #39
And here are some good links to balanced, fair assesments of the impacts of the chemical and radiological effects of depleted uranium. The first is from Argonne National Lab, and intends only to determine the risk coefficients for various mechanisms of biological uranium contamination:

http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/Depleted-Uranium.pdf

The second is an "almagamation" paper by two guys at the University of Maryland and Princeton. It appears an awful lot of research went into this paper, and I think its presentation is quite fair.

http://www.puaf.umd.edu/faculty/papers/fetter/sags-du.pdf

My final opinion on the matter? I think DU is nasty stuff, both from a radiological and a chemical standpoint. It is no more chemically dangerous than other compounds like lead (a milligram's not going to kill you), but it burns spontaneously in air and aerosolizes easily upon impact, making it easier to get into the body. It's not significantly radioactive (rather low specific activity, 175,000 times lower than plutonium-239) to be dangerous unless rather significant amouts are ingested or inhaled -- but I would bet that some of the soldiers involved in these battles (or some of the very stupid cilivians playing with the spent rounds) have exceeded this threshold. I feel fairly certain that at least a few people will (or have) developed cancers due to DU exposure.

On the whole, I think most of the alarmism about DU is unfounded. I'm also certain that DU is not responsible for the deformed babies shown in theroyprocess's flash site -- but, at the same time, I think its use constitutes a definite ethical problem. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means "tame as a kitty cat" and 10 means "instant wretching death," I personally rank DU as a 4. Your opinions?

- Warren
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #40
Ubiquitous Disclaimers

Here it is again...deadly, long-lived radioactive waste leaks
into our precious groundwater...and some industry spokesman
will state...'poses no threat to health'. They should go hang
themselves like Judas!
----------------------------------------------------------------

Sellafield leaks worse than feared
Fears for drinking supply as radioactive pollution at nuclear plant
contaminates groundwater

By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor
Sunday Herald - 14 December 2003

http://www.sundayherald.com/print38691

Radioactive contamination of the groundwater under the Sellafield nuclear
complex is worse than thought and British Nuclear Fuels isn’t doing enough
about it, says the government’s English watchdog, the Environment Agency.

The agency has told the local community in Cumbria it is “not satisfied”
with the progress being made by the state-owned company in understanding the
spread of pollution. New evidence indicates the contamination is
“potentially significant”.

“BNFL has messed up again,” alleged Pete Roche from the environmental group,
Greenpeace. “Contamination of groundwater is a serious matter, and BNFL has
displayed a lackadaisical attitude in its efforts to discover the source.”

BNFL admitted two years ago that the radioactive wastes, technetium-99 and
tritium, had been found in boreholes on the site. Last year, the government’
s Nuclear Installations Inspectorate reported that the contamination was
also detectable outside the site.

Now the Environment Agency is suggesting it has spread further. “The agency
is concerned that the current contaminated land study is indicating that
there is potentially significant contamination of groundwater,” it reported
to the Sellafield local liaison committee a few days ago.

“The lateral spread of technetium-99 and tritium on the Sellafield site
appears to be greater than last reported. The agency considers the develop
ment of deeper boreholes should lead to a greater understanding of the
vertical spread of contamination into the aquifer beneath the site. The
agency is not satisfied with BNFL’s progress in such work.”

The agency’s inspectors are worried BNFL is not using the best practice when
it samples groundwater. “We are very keen to protect the aquifer,” one of
them told the Sunday Herald. “We are pushing BNFL very hard on this.”

Environmentalists fear contamination of the sandstone aquifer under the site
could affect drinking water.

“It’s disgraceful that this liquid radioactive plume is being allowed to
spread out-side Sellafield unchecked and out of hand,” Martin Forwood, a
member of Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (Core).

“That it now appears to involve not just technetium-99 but a number of other
radioactive materials, and to have penetrated the sandstone aquifer below
Sellafield, is a major concern and a threat to drinking water supplies. BNFL
and the Environment Agency must come clean now with the public about what is
happening.”

There are several possible sources for the leak. One is six, huge, old tanks
containing 3000 tonnes of radioactive sludge, another is some old waste
disposal trenches and a third is a complex of ponds and silos containing
high-level waste.

“The most likely source is previously reported leaks from historic
facilities on the site. We are continuing our investigations to confirm the
precise source or sources,” said a BNFL spokesman.

“The levels found pose no threat to health, and are so low that
sophisticated techniques are required to measure them. The company has
already made improvements to its sampling regimes, and is developing an
integrated monitoring programme as suggested.”

* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net *
(Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. section 107) *
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #41
EDITED by enigma


*flooding deleted*

I wasn't kidding. No more links, no more articles. Not until you answer this:
Now: could you PLEASE tell me how you can think that is worse than the 70,000 people who are killed by air pollution in the US EVERY YEAR.
The remote chance to kill a few hundred people and the chance to increase the probability of getting cancer by a fraction of a percent for a few hundred people

vs.

A guaranteed mortality rate of 70,000 per year plus a dramatic increase in asthma and other breathing related illnesses.

How is the first one worse?[/color]

This was posted by enigma, a PF Mentor, in the following Nuclear Engineering thread (The Nuclear Power Thread):
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9091&perpage=12&pagenumber=4

Later, enigma said: "I'm angry with theroyprocess not because of his beliefs, but because instead of stating his points, he's cutting and pasting pages and pages from all over the web to make his points for him without addressing any points made by the alternate viewpoint."

As far as I can see, Ms theroyprocess, you haven't answered any of the questions asked of you on this thread either.

Why is it that you do not answer simple, straight-forward questions on the material which you post?[/color]
 
  • #42
Multi-generational health effects

Radioactive environmental contamination causes multi-generational
genetic diseases. Ultimately, genocide and extinction. This IS what
makes radiation "different" than other lethalities. I thought this was
obvious!
 
  • #43


Originally posted by theroyprocess
Radioactive environmental contamination causes multi-generational
genetic diseases. Ultimately, genocide and extinction. This IS what
makes radiation "different" than other lethalities. I thought this was
obvious!
Assume for the moment that "radioactive environmental contamination causes multi-generational genetic diseases". Throughout your many posts you have not addressed the following questions:

1) in what ways is 'radioactive environmental contamination' qualititatively different from naturally occurring radioactivity, in terms of its human impact?

2) the incidence of 'radioactive environmental contamination' is several orders of magnitude smaller than naturally occurring radioactivity, by any metric to do with human health. Ergo, detrimental effects on human health arising from 'radioactive environmental contamination' are far outweighed by detrimental effects on human health arising from naturally occurring radioactivity. If your concern is human health, why aren't you working to reduce our exposure to naturally occurring radioactivity?

3) Efforts to reduce the harmful health effects on humans of radioactivity come at a price. Why is it more cost effective to reduce the already tiny incidence of 'radioactive environmental contamination' than to take simple steps to reduce exposure to naturally occurring radioactivity?
 
  • #44
Man made radiation

Nereid,

Dr. John Gofman, Dr. Rosalie Bertell and others have written books
about man made radioactive threats to human health. I have posted
their URLs on this site.

Nevertheless...I'm sure you will dismiss their work on some
confabulated reason anyway!
 
  • #45
Yes, Nereid is a fellow member of the International Scientific Conspiracy. We have agents everywhere! You'd be surprised to learn that relativity, quantum mechanics, and even Newton's laws are really just confabulations, and we've pushed them upon the unsuspecting public all this time!

- Warren
 
  • #46


Originally posted by theroyprocess
Nereid,

Dr. John Gofman, Dr. Rosalie Bertell and others have written books
about man made radioactive threats to human health. I have posted
their URLs on this site.

Nevertheless...I'm sure you will dismiss their work on some
confabulated reason anyway!
What I'm looking for *you* - the person posting lengthy material written by others - to do is answer three simple questions.

To clarify: why do YOU believe that man-made radioactivity is a much nastier, greater threat to human health than the naturally-occurring radioactive background we all experience now?
 
  • #47
It's MURDER

If I get cancer and die in great pain, spending a life time
savings for treatment...from a radioactive spoon , car,
beltbuckle...because some insect dumped radioactive waste
into commercial manufactured products...it's PREMEDITATED MURDER !
If you can't grasp that...your brain is so cooked you will NEVER
understand the problem!
 
  • #48
I don't know about you, but I've been thinking my belt buckle's out to get me for some time now. You should see the way it eyes me while it's lying on the floor beside my bed. I think it's definitely planning something.

- Warren
 
  • #49


Originally posted by theroyprocess
If I get cancer and die in great pain, spending a life time
savings for treatment...from a radioactive spoon , car,
beltbuckle...because some insect dumped radioactive waste
into commercial manufactured products...it's PREMEDITATED MURDER !
If you can't grasp that...your brain is so cooked you will NEVER
understand the problem!
Oh, and if 'I get cancer and die in great pain, spending a life time savings for treatment...from' spending my winters skiing in the Alps, or flying thousands of hours on trans-Pacific airliners, or ... is that premeditated murder? or a form of suicide? Should I call my lawyers and sue the ski resort (because they didn't warn me about the increased risks of cancer from living at high altitude), or airline company (ditto)?

If you were my lawyer, supposing that I got cancer, how would you prove - in a court of law - that the man-made radioactivity in the spoon I used was the cause of my cancer, and not the *million* times greater natural radioactivity in the spoon?
 
  • #50
Nuremberg Codes

If the public is being unknowingly posioned...or mislead and lied
to about some products or service advertised as "safe and effective"
which IS NOT. It is breaking THE NUREMBERG CODES...of informed
consent.

When your wife or daughter gets breast cancer and dies in agony.
Just TELL THEM...your b.s.

----------------------------------------------------------------------


Sunday Herald - 26 October 2003
Revealed: UK mums’ milk second most toxic in world
Survey shows chemicals from everyday products are ‘poisoning’ breast milk
By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Toxic contamination of mothers’ breast milk in Britain is among the highest in the world, a new survey by scientists has revealed.
Concentrations of chemical flame retardants, suspected of damaging brain development and causing cancer, are higher in the UK than in Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Canada. Scientists say the levels are “a real cause for concern”, while environmentalists describe them as “shocking” and “extremely worrying”.

The revelation comes as the European Commission prepares to water down its plan for regulating the 30,000 manufactured chemicals to which people are exposed in everyday consumer products. New controls to be published this week will be seriously weakened because of opposition from the chemical industry, backed by the British, German and French governments.

Scientists from Lancaster University tested the breast milk of 52 mothers in Lancaster and London for a group of chemicals known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), widely used in clothing, furniture and plastics to make them less flammable.

Some PBDEs were found in every sample, the highest being 68.6 nanograms per gram of fat and the average 6.6ng. These are much higher levels than every other country where comparable surveys have been done, except for the United States, which is by far the biggest user of PBDEs.

The toxic effects of PBDEs are poorly understood, though there is evidence from animal studies that they could impair learning, memory and behaviour, as well as trigger liver cancer. Scientists point out that they are structurally similar to PCBs, which have long been regarded as potential carcinogens and as a threat to reproductive and immune systems.

“We don’t know how PBDEs affect human health,” Kevin Jones, professor of environmental chemistry at Lancaster University, told the Sunday Herald. “But we do know that they are accumulating in our bodies and we suspect that they might be as toxic as PCBs. ”

He suggested that the high levels his team found in breast milk could come from the large amounts of PBDEs used in consumer products in Britain to comply with the country’s stringent fire precautions. His study is the first to investigate levels in British breast milk, and it is due to be published in a scientific journal within the next few months.

The marketing and use of two types of PBDEs will be banned by the European Commission from next August . But companies are switching to a third type not covered by the ban, but which scientists fear could be just as harmful.

Environmental groups say the new evidence about PBDEs strengthens the need for the European Commission to introduce a tough set of rules on hazardous chemicals this week. But leaked drafts of the latest EC proposals suggest that several of its key provisions will be abandoned.

The new regulations, known as Reach, will require much less safety information to be provided on two-thirds of the chemicals in use, as well as enabling companies to remain anonymous. Industry will only have to prove that chemicals are subject to “adequate control”, even if safer alternatives are available.

Recent research shows that many chemicals with potential health effects can be detected in a wide range of ordinary household items. Nonylphenols and phthalates, for example, have been found in Disney and Mothercare children’s pyjamas as well as in Woolworths bath ducks.

Earlier this month, the Food Standards Agency warned that a cancer-causing chemical called semicarbazide was migrating into food from the plastic seals on the lids of jars. Last month, the Sunday Herald disclosed that baby toys, nappies, clothes and plastics were contaminated with tin compounds known as organotins.

Now the discovery of PBDE flame retardants in breast milk has set more alarm bells ringing.

“It is extremely worrying,” said Duncan McLaren, the chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland. He accused the British government of blocking agreement on the new European safety rules. “Given these shocking findings it is high time ministers stood up to the lobbying of chemical corporations and protected people from exposure to toxic threats.”

Another environmental group, WWF Scotland, is this week planning to release the results of blood tests it carried out for chemicals on 12 volunteers, including two MSPs, Sarah Boyack and Christine Grahame. Some of them may have tested positive for PBDEs.

“We cannot reveal individual results but the recent concerns over flame retardants mean that we will be looking particularly closely at these results,” said Dr Richard Dixon, head of policy at WWF Scotland.

“The European proposals to control chemicals are crucial to reducing the threat from the chemical soup we all live in. Until recently the UK supported radical reform of the laws on chemicals, so it is doubly disgraceful that Tony Blair has tried to water down the new testing system.”

The British Prime Minister wrote to EC President Romano Prodi in September, complaining that the proposed Reach chemical regulations were “a long way from being the fast, simple and cost- efficient procedure that was promised”. The letter was also signed by the French President, Jacques Chirac, and German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder.

The chemical industry also protested that the EC proposals would cost billions of euros and could put thousands out of work. As a result, EC environment commissioner Margot Wallström was forced to rewrite large chunks of the draft legislation, which she is due to publish on Wednesday.

But on Tuesday, thousands of protest postcards will be handed into the EC office in Edinburgh by FoE Scotland.

The government’s environmental agencies also seem anxious to ensure that the rules remain strong.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency stressed that “prevention rather than cure is always a better option”, while Scottish Natural Heritage said that if the current Reach scheme was unworkable, other options should be explored.

The Scottish Executive, however, gave nothing away. Deputy environment minister, Allan Wilson, said: “We will study the proposals carefully to assess how well they balance environmental and health objectives with our desire to see a competitive and innovative chemicals industry.”

The new regulations are likely to be broadly welcomed by the Chemicals Industries Association (CIA), though it still wants further changes. “The commission has completed half the job in reducing the scope of the proposals,” said CIA director general, Judith Hackitt.

The new regulations will then go to the European parliament for comments. Environmentalists are hoping MEPs will be more receptive to their lobbying .

“Unless the European parliament strengthens this legislation it will not do anything to protect human health and the environment,” said Mark Strutt of Greenpeace. “The fight to get legislation that protects ordinary people from daily exposure to hazardous chemicals is just about to begin.”



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  • #51
Still waiting ...

Ad hoc Nereid scale of global damage to human health (0 = no net negative impact; open ended scale):

PBDEs - bad, 5
radioactive materials (man made) - not good, 1
radioactive materials (natural) - a million times worse, 106


theroyprocesses' assessment (inferred by Nereid, from reading theroyprocesses' posts):

PBDEs - 10
radioactive materials (man made) - 109
radioactive materials (natural) - 0
 
  • #52
Dr. Kaku on Art Bell

Dr. Kaku's comments on the Art Bell radio talk show..12/15/03

Recap
Nuclear Scenarios
Monday's guest, theoretical physicist Prof. Michio Kaku (mkaku.org) joined Art Bell (who was sitting in for George) in a conversation about the dark side of nuclear energy. Kaku detailed various little-known nuclear mishaps from earlier decades, such as a Soviet incident that happened in the Ural Mountains in the 1950's, which he called "the mother-of-all nuclear accidents before Chernobyl." The reactor was actually in flames and entire villages had to be evacuated, he noted.

"I would say I'm critical of nuclear power," Kaku said, pointing out that having a potentially unstable reactor near a large population center such as Indian Point (which is 20 miles away from New York City) creates a dangerous scenario. But while he believes small nation states and terrorists may soon have access to nuclear weapons technology, he suggested that the world was probably closer to the brink of extinction during the Cold War, when both the US and the Soviets seriously considered a first strike, which likely would have lead to a "nuclear winter."
 
  • #53
I heard the interview, too. I can't believe I ever thought that Dr. Kaku was a whimpy hippie child.
I think he's actually pretty level-headed and has some very good reasons why he switched from being a nuclear proponent to a nuclear opponent.
I've never thought nuclear power plants were a good idea but had always been behind nuclear weapons M.A.D.
Well, we can't feel too sorry for ourselves, though, since Russia has had even more accidents.
 
  • #54
Nereid, I'm pleased to announce that you have been nominated for the PF Foam Rubber Headband Award. Congratulations.

Warren on the other hand, was eliminated from contention VERY early in the game.

Edit: Nereid, your mailbox is full so I couldn't respond to your PM. The award is to keep you from hurting yourself while you bang your head against the wall.
 
Last edited:
  • #55
{ø}

Nereid, does this mean that you're not cool with Michio's opinions on nuclear stuff?
 
  • #56
Originally posted by cozzmikjoker
{ø}

Nereid, does this mean that you're not cool with Michio's opinions on nuclear stuff?
cozzmikjoker,

It means that I would like to engage in a fact-based debate with theroyprocess concerning the material which she posts, and her own views. However, the total of her answers to my questions (and others') so far is the null set.

As to what Michio's opinions on nuclear power, weapons, use of radioactive materials in medicine, science, industry, ... are, all there is in this thread is a couple of snippets from one radio interview, of which but 7 words are Michio's own. If he posts to this thread, I'd be glad to engage in a debate on his opinions.

What are your own views on the topic of public health aspects of radiation?
 
  • #57
Wish it were possible to paste the interview on here. Maybe if Cory and Mike are around, they'll create some sound files.
The doctor's arguments are very convincing.
 
  • #58
Originally posted by cozzmikjoker
Wish it were possible to paste the interview on here. Maybe if Cory and Mike are around, they'll create some sound files.
The doctor's arguments are very convincing.
What are your own views? Which arguments do you find particularly convincing? Can you summarise them?
 
  • #59
This is an answer?

Originally posted by theroyprocess
The silkwood movie is a good reminder of what goes on
even today.

http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/electric/2003/120303survey.html
Just so that I don't misunderstand ...

Your answer to the question "Why is it more important to reduce the use of nuclear power than reduce long-haul flights and time spent at high-altitude ski resorts, from the perspective of reduction in radiation-causes health problems?" is "Because whistleblowers have a hard time".
 
  • #60
Originally posted by Nereid

What are your own views?

My view used to be that I was against nuclear power plants because it's not worth the risks and it's still my view.
My view also used to be that I was pro nuclear weapons. Amen to Mutually Assured Destruction.
And of course I still think we have to protect ourselves (sometimes your only defense is the threat of offense) BUT someone needs to invent weapons that won't poison the earth.



Which arguments do you find particularly convincing?

I don't argue anymore. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, had enough. I have a life and also I'm on too many other boards, so there's just not enough free time to rattle cages on here.

Can you summarise them?

And no, I don't summarize well. I sent something to Dr. Kaku once and I got a response demanding that I summarize it and I couldn't do it. Sorry. But yeah, the doctor had some interesting information about the dangers of nuclear stuff. Too bad you didn't hear it.


That said, Nereid, it's your turn why to tell us why you're such a big fan of nuclear power plants and weapons, if indeed you are...?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
45
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
13K