cramer@kontron.UUCP (08/14/86)
> Arms-Discussion Digest Thursday, July 31, 1986 6:55PM > Volume 6, Issue 130 > Date: 31-Jul-86 15:03-EST > From: sam mccracken <oth104%BOSTONU.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA> > Subject: Re: Radiation and Health (long) > > ----- > !n 1980 or thereabouts, the chinese published a massive study of two > areas, in one of which the background radiation was twice as high as > the other. > most of the families had lived in the areas for ten generations. > they did careful epidemiological studies for cancer, chromosome > damage and genetic disease. result: a slightly (but > insignificantly) _lower_ incidence in the _high_ radiation area, > where for generations people absorbed hi for tmi. the director of > the study found it persuasive, but not compelling, evidence for the > existence of a threshhold below which there is no health impact from > radiation. > Several years ago I read (I believe in an Encyclopedia Brittanica article on radiation hazards) that people receiving 5 REM exposure at Hiroshima had a LOWER fatality rate than the unexposed population. There was apparently some dispute whether this was a statistical fluke or not. If not a statistical fluke, I would not find this surprising, since we have evolved in a sea of background radiation. Glasstone's _The_Effects_Of_Nuclear_Weapons_ (3rd ed.) mentions that low exposures of mammals (how low, unfortunately, I don't remember) seemed to create long-term damage to female eggs, but that male sperm cells damage seemed to self-correct after about 40 days. Again, not surprising considering the background radiation levels at which we have evolved. I'm not sure what the truth is, but it seems at times that the loudest braying about NO SAFE EXPOSURE comes from people with political agendas. It does seem unlikely to me that the response of our bodies to a naturally occurring hazard would be linear all the way down to our limits of measurement. Clayton E. Cramer -------