Re: "Limit to Survival - Effect of Radiation

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 10/3/02 10:24:03 AM Mountain Daylight Time, jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov writes:



> As a counter argument, I could say that since we do not have stresses like
>
> malnutrition, malaria, smallpox, typhoid, etc., we do like longer.  Of
>
> course, less radiation through regulations have also increased our life
>
> span, which has been going up since the end of the 19th century.


What follows is not a counter-argument, but more of an addendum. "Life-span" includes prevention of infant and childhood deaths as well as extension of old age.  It also includes treatment of infections (I am reminded that Mozart died at age 36 of something a penicillin shot would have taken care of).  The cause of "childbed fever" was elucidated in 1896 or thereabouts.  In other words, the increase in lifespan since 1900 is a combination of better prenatal and neonatal care and nutrition, better obstetric care, much better diet, better understanding of the long-term health effects of alcohol and tobacco consumption, better sanitation, the advent of sulfa drugs and antibiotics, generally greatly improved medical knowledge, better euphenics, and better understanding and treatment of the diseases of aging like circulatory disease, osteoporosis, and cancer.  Radiation treatment of cancer has certainly helped prolong life, but I really think the impact of b!

ackground radiation and similar "routine" exposures on life span, whether positive or negative,  is minimal in comparison with these other advances in knowledge and practice.


Ruth

  

Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com