| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Eco-Nuts Reject Natural Levels Of Radioactivity As Dangerous |
| 2006-10-21 |
| The United States, in a twist on social Darwinism, maintains protection standards so low that they shield only the strongest people from cancer-causing radiation. So say scientists whose conclusions are propelling a new campaign to provide greater safety for women, children, and others at greatest risk. "A central principle of environmental health protection--protecting those most at risk--is missing from much of the U.S. regulatory framework for radiation," said Arjun Makhijani, president of the Takoma Park, Maryland-based Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) and co-author of a study, released Thursday, that is driving the campaign. Many federal radiation protection standards, such as limits on how much residual radiation is allowed in contaminated soil, are designed to protect "Reference Man," a hypothetical Caucasian male, says the report, Science for the Vulnerable: Setting Radiation and Multiple Exposure Environmental Health Standards to Protect Those Most at Risk. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #13 The people with the scare messages are definitely rip off artists like .com says. But what they are taking advantage of is magical thinking. If I can live to 84 now, then if I achieve some impossible level of purity, maybe I'll live forever. It just occurred to me that maybe that's the answer to the European fertility crisis. If you don't believe in an afterlife, then maybe if you don't have kids, you can achieve some sort of immortality. At the very least, you won't have to share posterity with any progeny. It's kind of a post-modern paganism. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2006-10-21 17:42 |
| #12 Breast cancer is higher because women are entering puberty ealier due to a richer diet, and having less children later. Since pregancy lowers the risk of breast cancer they are more at risk for longer. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2006-10-21 13:51 |
| #11 ""A considerable and growing body of evidence indicates that exposure to radiation and synthetic chemicals is contributing to increasing rates of breast cancer in the U.S. and other industrialized countries," said Jeanne Rizzo, a registered nurse and executive director of the San Francisco-based Breast Cancer Fund." The breast cancer rate (adjusted for age) is four times higher in developed nations compared to undeveloped nations. Nobody knows why. There is recent evidence that artificial lighting at night disrupts the melatonin production cycle. I.e., as part of the normal sleep cycle darkness triggers melatonin production. Low melatonin levels contribute to breast cancer. There is some rat research that supports this theory. |
| Posted by: Hupeger Creamble4059 2006-10-21 13:15 |
| #10 ...the U.S. standard for allowable exposure is "five times more lax than that in Germany." And is there corresponding health data to indicate that the incidence rate of [whatever, insert pet disease or thing here] is 5x greater among US citizens? I think not. If there were, they would've quoted it in screaming rooftop headlines. Money. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-21 12:29 |
| #9 And they'll take it and run, lol. Between radon gas (incredibly common in US), high-voltage powerlines, depleted uranium, DDT banning, climate whatever, etc, ad nausuem, we're doomed! Fake science is the best scam going, since most folks be serious Luddites and dolts. I still think the MegaDisaster shows (volcanos, tsunamis, NE asteroids, yadda³) are the best, though, since there is some science in there, just a timeframe that usualy eclipses man's total existence, lol. Given any (more? lol) thought to locating the "safest" place to be on Gaia so we can take it and start stocking up? We mustn't have a Safe Hidey Hole Gap! Lol. :-) |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-21 12:22 |
| #8 Agreed, .com, agreed. Just pointing out that there ARE (and have historically been) some mistakes made in setting exposure standards as a result of relying on male undergrads almost exclusively in studies. The PCB is one well-known example. Gave an opening to the enviro-ticks. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-10-21 12:15 |
| #7 These people don't give two shits about public health or safety. They want a pot of money they can skim from and dole out to those who will do "studies" generating "stats" that support a bigger pot each succeeding budget cycle. It's another scam. Fred used to have a link on the right to the various scam orgs and scam artists. I think it would either already feature the people behind this or should add them. It's all about the money. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-21 12:03 |
| #6 Overly stringent standards are stupid. It *is*, however, the case that standards set for adult men may not be safe for women and children. That has been established for PCBs, for instance, and for a number of other substances. The reason is that estrogen carries many of these substances through cell walls and into the cell nucleus. Some of the original work on this was done at the National Institutes of Environmental Health in Research Triangle Park in the early 90s. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-10-21 11:56 |
| #5 I remember stopping for lunch in a small town in Germany. They had a lovely four-colour pamphlet touting the spa built around the local hot springs, a common feature in Germany with its health spa obsession. The special feature of hot springs in this particular town was the natural, low level radiation, "very healthful for curing minor ailments, aches and pains, and cleaning the blood." Or some such thing. This was in the first half of the 1990s. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-10-21 11:48 |
| #4 Only a bunch of goddamned hippies would be running around trying to cause mass panic over a couple picocuries of tritium. What do they expect us to do if there is too much in the water, get out the tritium pico-filters and strain it out? |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2006-10-21 10:44 |
| #3 Gaia herself is a polluter! |
| Posted by: Mike 2006-10-21 10:24 |
| #2 This has been going on in some locales since the 80's. The Louisiana EPA (yes, they have their own) declared something similar about ground water produced during the development of oil and gas wells. Seems the level designated as "toxic" was below the normal background in most fo the areas being explored in LA - so produced groundwater was supposed to be treated as toxic waste. Extermely expensive stupidity. Of course the awl companies figgered out how to get around it, but I ain't tellin' how, lol. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-21 10:09 |
| #1 I remember reading that in the late 80's, Germany passed a "radioactive waste" law with such low levels that human corpses qualified. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2006-10-21 10:00 |