--- Chad Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [I wrote] > > >I think that 'local hot spots' will cause disease in > >those who live in them, but probably little > otherwise; > >yet the use of DU munitions in heavily populated > areas > >is irresponsible to me, particularly in view of > >genetic damage and placental passage. Baghdad has > >thus become an experiment in DU effects, both > >short-term and long-term. > > Before you make this judgement, I would like to > point you to > http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/
<grin> Hey, *I* posted something about 'radiation hormesis' including at least one PubMed abstract early this year (or late last)! I even compared it to the (_well-documented_) adaptive/'toughening' effect of gut bacteria on the mammalian immune system. (Sorry, but I don't recall the thread - no doubt something about radiation. <pout> You mean to say that you don't read everything I post with eagerness and great attention?! Golly gee willikers, Chadster... ;} ) But that does not alter the problem of *chemical* toxicity, nor the long-term potential effects on children who play in dirt/soil heavily contaminated with DU, especially if, as noted in several of the abstracts posted this thread, DU _accumulates_ in organs like liver, kidney and bone. > There is a lot of contraversy about the health > effects of radiation, good or > bad. Before you judge DU's effects, you should > solidify whether or not > radiation is truly harmful. I'm not saying Radiation > or DU is good or bad. I > know that DU can be "ammo" for bashing the > millitary. People are afraid of > Radiation, and some use its alledged health benefits > as a way to promote nuclear power. We evolved in an environment with background radiation, so it makes sense that organisms should be adapted to repair the damage it causes, just as we have evolved mechanisms to take care of free radical damage and oxidative damage. It even makes sense that being 'challenged' by rather higher levels 'weeds out' the less-fit and/or strengthens the already-fit. But evidence that high levels of radiation cause cancer and genetic damage is strong - I will try to find that post in the archives later, although I may not have time today. Off the top, however, are uranium miners with lung and I believe other cancers, thyroid cancer in people who were treated with radiation for thyroid nodules and/or acne (which was stopped as 'therapy' before 1960 IIRC), and various 'secondary' cancers arising in those treated for 'primary' cancer with radiation (and also certain chemotherapeutics, which after all are essentially toxic poisons). And there's the classic radium watch-face painter's tongue cancer (from licking the brush to get a fine point - no longer done, of course!). I don't recall if the children who played with material from improperly-disposed-of medical radiation equipment (cesium? incident in Mexico or Central America? early 90's?) just got radiation poisoning, or went on to develop cancer. > Some references for you: > DOE study effects on Nuclear Dock Workers - DOE > report DE-AC02-79 EV10095, 1991 > Summary: radiation may prevent Cancer. <grimace> Forgive my skepticism of research that comes out of government agencies that have a definite agenda -- working at VAs has been - disconcerting, and often downright infuriating. Ref my post on cerivastatin (Baycol) from the VA [agenda: cheaper]. > RERF Report No. 8-99 > Longevity of atomic-bomb survivors > Cologne JB, Preston DL > Lancet 356:303-7, 2000 > Summary: Hiroshima survivors do not live longer. > Other studies suggest otherwise. I don't think I linked to any studies about the Japanese survivors b/c we were talking about nuclear power rather than actual A-bombs (although perhaps we also were discussing 'dirty' bombs?) - but I'm reasonably sure that several cancers are higher in such people, and possibly their children. In that earlier post I also referenced several more studies that found that people living in areas of higher background radiation had lower or at least no more cancer rates than others in low-rad backgrounds (a good one was from India; a bad one from China, in that they calculated rather than actually went around and measured levels -- IIRC, the Chinese one was about a mining area population). I also posted data that showed that as little as *1-2 rads* in-utero exposure increase the risk of leukemia (which is why we try so hard *not* to X-ray women who are - or potentially are - pregnant). Debbi who hopes the Great Brin-L Archives are 'searchable' rather than just 'reviewable' __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
