Misunderstanding the nuclear danger

[arivecchi]

I thought this article was a good reality check given the reactions people have been having to the disaster in Japan.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12785274

[hillview]

THANKS for posting.
/hillary

[Melaine]

Thanks. This articles articulates exactly what DH continues to tell me but it is hard not jump on the bandwagon of hysteria. I think the media does a good job of playing up our fears and not summoning us to action. Continued focus on the healing process in the wake of the tsunami would prompt people to try to help, but focusing on unknown dangers just paralyzes them, IMO. It's sad to push past the victims of a tragedy to focus on a tragedy that really hasn't actualized yet.

[wellyes]

I love BBC.
(Athough this sentence momentarily flustered me: "Because more than 70 million CT scans are carried out each year, the US National Cancer Institute has estimated that 29,000 Americans will get cancer as a result of the CT scans they received in 2007 alone." My first reaction was: what was wrong with CT scans in 2007? heh)

[arivecchi]

I love BBC.
(Athough this sentence momentarily flustered me: "Because more than 70 million CT scans are carried out each year, the US National Cancer Institute has estimated that 29,000 Americans will get cancer as a result of the CT scans they received in 2007 alone." My first reaction was: what was wrong with CT scans in 2007? heh)
I found that very revealing. Interesting how people obsess about the fallout from Japan and probably don't think twice about a CT scan.

[bubbaray]

probably don't think twice about a CT scan.


I dunno about that. I have had 2 CT scans in the past 12m (head January 2010, lungs November 2010) and my GP and my specialists were concerned. The radiologist wants me to have another lung CT scan in November 2011 and my GP and pulmonologist have both said no. Unless I am hospitalized with further lung problems, they do not want me to have another CT scan for a very long time. It is definitely something that my drs are aware of.

[arivecchi]

My point was that people are freaking out about Japan while they likely ignore much bigger and more immediate dangers. I thought the article offered much needed perspective.

[tribe pride]

Thanks for posting this.

[arivecchi]

Here's a newspaper editorial discussing the same topic.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/environment/ci_17627220?nclick_check=1

An interesting article about precautions taken at nuclear plants in the US:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/us/21nuke.html?adxnnl=1&hpw=&adxnnlx=1300719677-EWhGvMFLIAYJ9KQgKGorzg

[elektra]

I also saw a similar article over the weekend that was written right after Japan had announced that they had detected radiation in the food in close proximity to the plant.
And then it went on to say that a person would have to eat that food every day for a year to get the same amount of radiation as one CT scan. I thought that was a good comparison, and I do think that even if doctors know the risk of CT scan radiation, it is not top of mind for the average person. I myself was getting more nervous about the nuclear plant's radiation than what I have had from CT scans.
And I do think it's a psychological coping mechanism to focus on one thing like that (the radiation), where there are really much bigger concerns/tragedies.

[mackmama]

Thank you for posting these links!

[mommylamb]

Thanks for posting. I really see nuclear power as a necessity (especially if you care about reducing carbon and still keeping the lights on), but people know so little about it.

[ladysoapmaker]

Thanks for posting the links.

Also for you folks who haven't been introduced to xkcd, here's his take on radiation. Reasonably accurate on general levels for public ...education, but the disclaimer notes: "If you're basing radiation safety procedures on an internet PNG image and things go wrong, you have no one to blame but yourself."

http://www.xkcd.com/radiation/

Jen

[ellies mom]

Thanks for posting the links.

Also for you folks who haven't been introduced to xkcd, here's his take on radiation. Reasonably accurate on general levels for public ...education, but the disclaimer notes: "If you're basing radiation safety procedures on an internet PNG image and things go wrong, you have no one to blame but yourself."

http://www.xkcd.com/radiation/

Jen

Thanks for posting this. I saw it on another board and was going to post it myself.

[dogmom]

CT scans are different from regular xrays which are different from the contamination people are talking about. I work in a trauma unit and there has been a LOT of discussion in the literature and conferences about the "let's just do one to be safe" pan body CT. There are many issues: calibration of equipment, age of equipment, skill of technician, patient movement that leads to false starts and stops. These can add up to a boat load of exposure, especially if the patient is going to have more. Then you have to talk about age. A big CT scan in a 19 yo that has 6-7 decades left to develop cancer probalby means you can do a good exam and the chances of him or her dying from some "missed" problem is less than dying of cancer. However, this is all theoretical since the 19 yo haven't turned 70 and we don't have the real data yet. And patientss really push for CT scans all the time, which often don't yield good data. I had one that could have been avoided with a simple test and all it did was lead me to surgery d/t a benign ovarian cyst they found incidentally.

However it is good to remember, as an oncologist once said, "Radiation isn't actually verry efficient at causing cancer, it takes a random hit. There are very more realiable ways to cause cancer than radiation."