Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
10. But the total expected increased risk is less
Fri Mar 1, 2013, 01:38 AM
Mar 2013

than quite a few people in the US get from Xrays:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/health/26brody.html?_r=0

Dr. Oz warned that people who have more than five X-rays a year have a fourfold greater risk of developing this cancer, and recommended the use of a lead thyroid shield when getting dental X-rays or mammograms.


Proportionately speaking, the WHO report projects increased rates (using a high-bound method) which are probably going to be hard to find statistically.

Japan was lucky. The vast majority of the released radiation blew out to sea, and the significantly contaminated areas are small. And the WHO report agrees very well with Chernobyl data - which is not speculative. For the Chernobyl-exposed at rates such as those in most of Fukushima, any increased rates of cancer have been very small.

Still, I expect that the increased risk is there, because I think there are higher individual rates of exposure from natural environmental concentrations. But you won't see it in the data.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Cancer risk 70% higher fo...»Reply #10