[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: "Limit to Survival - Effect of Radiation
Ruth,
You
said it better than I could.
-- John
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 background 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