[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
The Quiz: Chernobyl thyroid cancer incidence="radioiodine confused scientists"
You wrote:
.....that only young infants were affected by the
accident. Does
that make sense?
Mike Lantz
----------------------
Mike,
Here is a Quiz on the Chernobyl Radio-iodines:
Your question:
Were the only young infants affected by the
accident? Does that make sense?
Here are the Key Answers:
a) Yes.
b) No.
c) Yes, it does make sense if you are trying to
make interpretation of the chronological infant
data.....
D) No, if there is no reliable dose correlation
to CANCER data for the Chernobyl radio-iodine
INTAKE/UPTAKE; air concentrations, specifically.
E) No, As far as I know "Radio-iodine Air
Concentration Data" is a problem with the
Chernobyl radio-iodine dose induced CANCER
incident studies in other words the lack of the
IMMEDIATE after the accident collected data =>
reliable source term data.
The reason: It was impossible to perform the
accident emergency response procedures WHEN the
ACCIDENT has not been acknowledged, yet...
There were
"four-days-later-flying-air-plane-collected-data".
That data hardly can be called as reliable
accident data.....at least in the power plant
world.
I do not know of
any-good-meteorological-radio-iodine-decay-dose-reconstruction-data.
Is it possible to do? May be, yes, but it is a
very laboureous work to do compare to
collecting-chronological-infant-thyroid-cancer-papers-and-
printing-them-into-a-scientific-paper-magazine.
f) No, Retrospectively, if MDs in Kiev (O.B.s
doctors) were giving LNT RECOMMENDATIONS to the
pregnant women to have abortions even when they
were six months and more into the
pregnancy....some people in the USA and many
other countries characterized that type of a late
term abortion as "killing the babies"
if it is so,
I have my own question about those recommended
interuptions for you colleagues:
How many babies were KILLED as the result of
RUMORS/SPECULATIONS about the CHERNOBYL
RADIATION?
a) 100
b) 1000
c) 10,000
d) 100,000..
As a matter as fact the wives of the deceased
Chernobyl fire fighters, who was in fact in the
Pripyat, during the accident, did refuse to
follow those recommends because of the the fact
that future babies were only the living memories
of their deceased husbands and they later had
perfectly healthy babies!!!
Back to the topic:
How had those "recommended" interruptions of the
pregnancy affected on the mentioned
"epidemiological" studies?
It is hard to determine, because of the human
bias factor...
Human bias factor:
g) No. Did those women who choosed
"interruptions" were REALLY exposed to the
significant amount of the radio-iodines?
or,
i) No. May be they lived outside of the
"significantly effected" areas and they were
rather exposed to the "LNT RUMORS" and just
panicked by those "LNT rumors" about FOUR and
FIVE HEADED newborn Chernobyl babies???!!!!!
j) No. Or, Yes......you may choose you own
here:______
More of the RUMORS and SPECULATIONS.
k) Yes, I hope those MDs(OBs) would not need to
do ANY of those recommends/speculations, again,
BUT if they would have to, they WONT
recommend/speculate the same again...
(Sometimes-semiannually-revised-breast-cancer-screening-age-depended-recommends-make-some-poeple-looked-like-having-license-to-spread-rumors-to-confuse-more-already-health-concerned-people).
l. NO! because, there is NO CLEAR and
PRESENT(proven) CANCER DANGER associated with the
SMALL doses of the ionized radiation, including a
dose from the reactor by-product radio-iodines.
Or
m) Yes! May be, is it possible that small doses
of the ionized radiation had a POSITIVE effect
and KILLED those NOCCs (NATURALLY OCCURRING
CANCER CELLs) and it's of course IS a PURE
speculation on my part because there were absent
of D and E
( see above D & E)
FACTS:
n) Yes, There always were more of the
phycological based misunderstandings
/confusions/abuses/harms about the small doses of
the radiation than their actual proven harms.
I hope, I did not bring more of the confusion
into
"radio-iodine-confused-scientists-discussion" :-)
A nice rest of the week for everyone.
Emil.
>>>>>>
From: "North, David"
Subject: RE: Lancet Dec. 8th abstract - Chernobyl
thyroid cancer incidence
I think that the point of the article is that the
thyroid cancers show up in
those children who were born before the accident
of 4/26/86 because they
were actively consuming foodstuffs from the
environment (milk, veggies,
etc.) on their own when the I-131 was released.
Those born immediately after
the accident presumably had not been weaned by
the time the I-131 had
decayed substantially. If they ingested any via
breast milk, it was heavily
filtered by their mothers first. The article
could have been more explicit
about this reasoning, assuming I have interpreted
it correctly.
> ----------
> From: Mike Lantz
> "However, scarcity of reliable estimates of
individual thyroid dose has
> hindered conclusions
> about the exact effect of the Chernobyl
accident on thyroid glands in
> children."
> "The major difference in background was that
children in group I (born
> after the accident;
> 0.00%) were not exposed to fallout, whereas
those in groups II (Born
> within months; 0·04%) and
> III (born before; 0.32%) were probably exposed
to fallout in utero or
> directly, respectively."
------------
> I've read the article now; thanks for the link.
Their results would imply
> that "in utero"
> photon exposure or the uptake of radio-iodine
to a developing fetus is an
> insignificant
> effect; that only young infants were affected
by the accident. Does
> that make sense?
> Mike Lantz
----------------------------
> "Michael C. Baker" wrote:
> > The following abstract may be of interest.
> > ----------------------------
> > 15 years after Chernobyl: new evidence of
thyroid cancer
> > Yoshisada Shibata, Shunichi Yamashita,
Vladimir B Masyakin, Galina D
> > Panasyuk, Shigenobu Nagataki
> > The Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident
happened on April 26, 1986.
> We investigated the cause of the striking
increase in frequency of thyroid
> > cancer in children who lived within a 150 km
radius of Chernobyl and who
> > were born before and after the accident. No
thyroid cancer was seen in
> 9472 children born in 1987-89, whereas one and
31 thyroid cancers were
> recorded in 2409 children born April 27, 1986,
to Dec 31, 1986, and 9720 born Jan
> 1, 1983, to April 26, 1986, respectively.
Short-lived radioactive fallout caused by the
Chernobyl accident probably induced thyroid
cancer in
> > children living near Chernobyl.
> > Lancet 2001; 358: 1965-66
http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol358/iss9297/full/llan.358.9297.origina
> l_research.18710
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.