A recent study tackles perceptions about the long-term health effects resulting from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs. The findings showed that the consequences over survivors’ health are not as severe as previously thought.
Bertrand Jordan, a French molecular biologist at UMR 7268 ADÉS, Aix-Marseille Université/EFS/CNRS, analyzed medical data from survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear attack, compiled throughout 60 years. Dr. Jordan’s objective was to clarify general misconceptions about the long-term health consequences of the bombings.
Former studies have found that radiation exposure increases cancer risk. It has also been found that the average lifespan of survivors from the atomic bombing was only reduced by a few months. Such findings refute any popular conception about health risks caused by exposure to radiation.
Scientists have not found health effects or any radiation-associated mutations on children of the survivors. Jordan suggested it would be possible to find subtle effects through more detailed tests on survivors’ genomes. Even then, the biologist believes that the children of survivors will face small health risks linked to atomic bombs.
“Most people, including many scientists, are under the impression that the survivors faced debilitating health effects and very high rates of cancer, and that their children had high rates of genetic disease. There’s an enormous gap between that belief and what has actually been found by researchers,” wrote Jordan in an article.
General misconception over radiation exposure
The long-term effects of the atomic bombings have been studied since 1947. Health risks or mutations should be no more considered as a possibility among survivors.
These findings encouraged Jordan to compare what researchers had gathered during 60 years of investigation. The French researcher attributed the public misconception to the fear of feeling threatened by agents we do not know.
Despite the devastations and horrific casualties the U.S. nuclear attack left, the fact of being exposed to a threat that is not found naturally is what has created a general mismatch among populations.
“People are always more afraid of new dangers than familiar ones. People tend to disregard the dangers of coal, both to people who mine it, and to the public exposed to atmospheric pollution. Radiation is also much easier to detect than many chemical hazards. With a hand-held geiger counter, you can sensitively detect tiny amounts of radiation that pose no health risk at all,” remarked Jordan.
Cancer rates and radiation exposure
Dr. Jordan remarked that about 200,000 individuals died in the bombings and the aftermath (firestorm and acute radiation poisoning). In 1947, the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF), funded by the Japanese and U.S. governments, conducted studies over half of the survivors to tackle health effects and lifespan.
The studies, which have followed approximately 100,000 survivors, 77,000 survivors’ children and other 20,000 who were not exposed to radiation, have revealed that cancer rates among survivors were higher compared to rates of people who were not exposed to radiation.
Other factors, such as age and sex, also played a role in survivors’ cancer rates. Younger survivors were more likely to face greater lifetime risks. Women were at higher risk of developing cancer.
Dr. Jordan added that his findings should not be used to minimize the effects of nuclear bombs nor to justify any country’s actions. While he encourages people to take a look at scientific data before creating misconceptions, he also called to consider the danger of nuclear power.
Source: Eureka Alert
Actually the atomic bomb survivor study UNDERESTIMATES the dangers of low level radiation, and underestimates the health effects and deaths suffered by the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Dr. Steven Wing has studied this extensively and said the following regarding the shortcomings of the atomic bomb study:
(1) the atomic bomb lifespan study did not begin until after 5 years of the
bombing, and many people did not survive to be studied
(2) the atomic bomb lifespan studies cancers beginning in 1958, 13 years AFTER the bombs were dropped, and OMITS ALL CANCERS that occurred in 13 years of exposure, and lots of cancers occur in less time than that
(3) the atomic bomb lifespan study does not include the impacts of utero exposure,
and shorter latency cancers such as leukemia and lung cancer
(4) the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) (who did the atomic bomb lifespan study) chose not to include gamma/beta induced radiation and fallout radiation effects
to estimate any of the radation doses
(5) the fallout of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not used in the studies, and this
fallout affected people further away
(6) missing data is a big problem in the atomic bomb lifespan study
(7) people who visited Nagasaki and Hiroshima after blasts were not included in the atomic bomb lifespan study
(8) distal survivors were not studied in the atomic bomb lifespan study
(9) in the 1950’s there were higher rates of mortality among survivors with unknown doses, they were taken out of the study – high mortality invididuals were removed from the study which affects the study
(10) all survivors were entered in a followup, all survivors had completed sufficient interviews to be assigned a dose, yet RERF entered people who could not be in the study until later “immortal person time” which inflates denominator of the cancer rates for the proximal survivors. This is another phenomenon that causes an UNDERESTIMATATION of the cancer rates for the proximal survivors
You can watch Dr. Steven Wing’s presentation on this at ENENEWS by going to ENENEWS and entering “Symposium” in the search engine and look for the link for the
“Medical and Ecological Consequences of the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster”
Next we’ll be hearing that atomic bombs are actually good for you….
I guess that means it’s good for you then. What about the changes that may occur to one’s genes and/or DNA due to that exposure as well as how that might transfer to their offspring and their ability to reproduce or have properly functioning organs?
This is actually not new data. Cancer rate in Japan is something like 20% ….. Post war Hiroshima and Nagasaki is something like 22%. Also cancer cases ≠ cancer deaths. Many are cured. So Nuke bombs did have long term effects … But nothing like what is portrayed in media. Also only natural that a cancer from one of those cities would automatically attribute their cancer to having been exposed to nuke radiation. No way of telling that though.
Tell it to the shadows on the walls. Maybe the idea here is to spin the bomb as something useful, something to be used again. Only a fool would go down that path.
Yeah, plutonium is good for you. It killed my father. Missile exploded over Johnston Atoll, scattered nuclear warhead material over the island. Took 40 years to do it, but he died from multiple myeloma. Never did get his full VA benefits. You have to insane to believe this article. Nuclear weapons effects are terrible, even short term. More military industrial complex propaganda.
……..this article is ridiculous on the face of it………………
In other news; the short term health effects of atomic bombs aren’t looking so good.
This report is long on conclusions and presents no data or even a reference to the data. Absent our ability to review the data, this is mere propaganda. Seems the public does not know the meaning of critical thinking and analysis. Bring on the Trolls!
Good job, not following the link at the bottom of the article, which leads to the article from Genetics. If you’re going to complain about a study, at least be honest about it.
It is there but not at all clear. Now I find the article is a Perspective not retrospective epidemiology. We cannot know how accurate the reporting of cases is or how it was collected. This is not scientific data, its a review article. It would be wholly irresponsible to base public health policy on one mans perspective. Its odd its published in a Genetics Journal and not Radiation Epidemiology. I would like to know who funded this work and why, honestly.
Y’know, I’ve always suspected this. I’ve always felt those vaporized wimps should just suck it up and *be quiet*.