Posts Tagged ‘Radiation Risks’

More on Radiation dangers

October 18, 2008

Cell Tower Protection
Cell Phone Ebook Cell Phone Ebook
I have been an active researcher on biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) for over twenty five years at Columbia University. I was also one of the organizers of the 2007 online Bioinitiative Report on the subject. Because of this background, I have been asked to provide background information regarding current discussions about the proposed cell tower.

There is now sufficient scientific data about the biological effects of EMF, and in particular about radiofrequency (RF) radiation, to argue for adoption of precautionary measures. We can state unequivocally that EMF can cause single and double strand DNA breakage at exposure levels that are considered safe under the FCC guidelines in the USA. As I shall illustrate below, there are also epidemiology studies that show an increased risk of cancers associated with exposure to RF. Since we know that an accumulation of changes or mutations in DNA is associated with cancer, there is good reason to believe that the elevated rates of cancers among persons living near radio towers are probably linked to DNA damage caused by EMF. Because of the nature of EMF exposure and the length of time it takes for most cancers to develop, one cannot expect ‘conclusive proof’ such as the link between helicobacter pylori and gastric ulcer. (That link was recently demonstrated by the Australian doctor who proved a link conclusively by swallowing the bacteria and getting the disease.) However, there is enough evidence of a plausible mechanism to link EMF exposure to increased risk of cancer, and therefore of a need to limit exposure, especially of children.
EMF Protection Products
Airtube Headsets

Source

There’s a video to watch on the site too..

Air Pollution, Worse than Radiation?

October 7, 2008

Radiation risk ‘like pollution’
Chernobyl
The damaged reactor at Chernobyl
Air pollution may be a bigger risk to health than exposure to radiation, such as that after the Chernobyl disaster, a study suggests.

Researchers examined the health impact of the meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, and the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945.

They concluded the risks were probably no greater than those posed by obesity, smoking and urban pollution.

However, a radiation expert cast doubt on the BMC Public Health research.

I’m not sure that it helps to compare the health risks from radiation among survivors of the atomic bombings in Japan with the risks from obesity or smoking
Dr Michael Clark, Health Protection Agency

He said the risks posed by radiation were not comparable to those from other sources.

Researcher Dr Jim Smith, from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, said exposure to radiation took fewer years off life expectancy than heavy smoking or severely obese.

He calculated that someone who was exposed to radiation after the Chernobyl incident had around a one in 100 chance of contracting a fatal cancer in later life as a direct result – in effect the mortality risk was increased by 1%.

Dr Smith estimated that exposure to air pollution, or passive smoking had a similar impact.

He conceded that the exact risk linked to pollution or passive smoking was harder to pin down.

But he said people living unofficially within the Chernobyl exclusion zone may have a lower health risk than if they were being exposed to the air pollution in a large nearby city such as Kiev.

Dr Smith said: “The perception is that there are big risks to public health from radiation exposure.

“This study shows that for the population exposed to significant doses of radiation from the Chernobyl incident, the risks of premature death are no greater than those of being subjected to prolonged passive smoking or of constantly over-eating.

“We can all face such health risks just going about our daily lives.”

Fears and perceptions

He said people’s fears or perceptions of the health risks they were exposed to after Chernobyl could prompt people to behave in ways which would actually have more impact on their health – such as becoming a heavy smoker.

But Dr Michael Clark, a radiation expert at the Health Protection Agency, said: “Comparing risks can give a helpful perspective but it needs to be done with care.

“Comparing the radiation risks of living near Chernobyl with the risk from air pollution in nearby Kiev may be relevant.

“However I’m not sure that it helps to compare the health risks from radiation among survivors of the atomic bombings in Japan with the risks from obesity or smoking.

“One is an extreme involuntary risk, the others are self imposed.”

A UN report estimated around 9,000 people exposed to radiation in the Chernobyl incident in 1986 would die from cancer, although Greenpeace has said the number of deaths linked to the incident could be closer to 90,000.

The atomic bomb dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are estimated to have killed a combined total of more than 200,000 people.

From BBC