Refutes British newspaper The Guardian in an opinion article written by researcher and the specialist Ian Fairlie validity of the previously talked about research papers about the risks of radiation on human health, says the article written by Lloyd Allison, a retired professor of particle physics at Oxford University under the title (of radiation health threat exaggerated -- on Jan. 11) - with drawing attention to that Alison is a specialist in radiation biology, epidemiology - not based on documents, strong, and indicates that most scientists in this field agree that there is a risk inherent even in the smallest doses of radiation may be exposed rights.
Then goes beyond to assure the non-validity of research and articles which had already been talked about a safe dose of radiation, and says that no matter how small the dose, the risk remains even if the rate is minimal. In this regard, attention is to use Fairley all the bodies entrusted to radiation around the world (including the Office of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, the International Commission on Radiological Protection, Health Protection Agency) theory, which assumes the absence of the beginning of a safe dose of radiation (a certain amount determined by some b 100 mm), to assess the risks that may be exposed to humans in the presence of low doses. Suggest that theory is relatively low risk, the lower the dose until you reach a point of zero, and the only dose that do not have any effects, which have a nil mm.
Fairley also underlines the fact that evidence to suggest that exposure to people living near nuclear facilities, caused them harm. He cites the example here, such a study conducted by the German government finally, and found significant increases in blood cancer known as the "leukemia" by (220%) and cancer by embryos (160%) in children who live near all nuclear reactors in the country. Results are supported by many other studies conducted around the world from the increased risk of leukemia among children living near nuclear reactors.
Fairley suggests that the risk of radiation based on the current data set is not satisfactory - and the best evidence that those Japanese citizens who survived the horrors of atomic bombs the U.S. in 1945. Then
Goes on to say that in spite of the relevance of those data assessing the hazard of the types of sudden explosions, strong radiation, but they are not related to the slow long-term exposure or most types of radiation, which is more common. While draws many of the studies that the risk be greater than suggested by the data.
He concludes Fairley talking about the existence of the effects of unusual and non-targeted radiation. He says it cause changes in cells distant in time and space in the cells exposed to radiation. And that such effects challenges the current interpretation of the effects of radiation, but they remain unknown to the public, although it is discussed widely by specialists in radiation biology throughout the world and is the subject of debate for thousands of scientific articles. This was the old explanation was given great support to current estimates of the dangers of radiation. While doing new influences in a way that is striking, because they occur after exposure to very low doses of radiation. In other words, these effects give rise to new questions seriously whether it would be necessary to tighten the current limits of the doses or not.
0 commentaires