Japan Deliberately Exposing Children to Unsafe Levels of Radiation

The Japanese government has loosed the rules on the amount of radiation children can be exposed to at school. The rules were relaxed in order to allow schools in the region of the nuclear disaster to re-open. However, they are now allowing children to be exposed to ten times the amount of radiation that was previously permissible, according to the Teacher Solidarity website.

Physicians for Social Responsibility condemned the decision, saying that the new limit of 20 millisieverts “for children exposes them to a 1 in 200 risk of getting cancer. And if they are exposed to this dose for two years, the risk is 1 in 100. There is no way that this level of exposure can be considered ‘safe’ for children.”

A statement from the Fukushima Teachers Union is reposted from the Teacher Solidarity website below:

Protect Children from Radiation Health Damage

Since the terrible disaster of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, the radiation levels remain incredibly high. For the protection of children from health damage by radiation, we have been continuously urging the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and the Fukushima Prefecture Education Board to set guidelines for security measures. On April 19, a month after the catastrophe, the MEXT finally notified “Tentative Guideline on Use of School Buildings and Playgrounds in Fukushima Prefecture”. On this “guidelines”, however, many anxious voices are raised from the parents and teachers in Fukushima whether their children could really be protected from the radiation effect by the new radiation standard.

The MEXT has set 20mSv/y as the upper limit of radiation levels for school children on April 19. It states that this maximum level of 20mSv/y is based on the recommendation Pub.109 by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) that recommended a tentative safety standard within a band of 1 to 20 mSv/y as reference levels in “Post Emergency Situation”. But this standard is set for the general public. It is not for school children. Moreover, it should be noted that the current guideline of regulation is set on 1 mSv/y. The threshold quantity of 20mSv/y is for the planned exclusion zones and also matches the annual radiation exposure dose limit for workers at nuclear plants (the 1990 Recommendation of ICRP). It is apparently very dangerous to adopt this standard to children who are the most vulnerable to radiation. Moreover, when children are exposed to radiation over many years, cumulative radiation will be considerable amount and therefore their risk to cause health damages will be substantial. If we follow the MEXT’s guideline, the lives and health of our children would never be protected.

The MEXT just set the exposure limit at 3.8 μSv/h for children using a school playground. The radiation dose on school playgrounds, however, varies greatly from place to place. The radiation level is comparably high at side ditches and puddles where rainwaters or dusts gather. Children touch soil or sand and run around school playgrounds. They cannot avoid breathing dusts flying in the air. They sometimes fall on the ground and skin their knees. Then radioactive materials would attach to their wounds. Even the air dose rate is less than 3.8 μSv/h, children would receive higher radiation through direct touch with the ground than in the air. There is also a danger of internal exposure.

For the protection of children from health damage by radiation, we strongly demand the rapid control of the nuclear plant accident and the prompt implementation of safety measures to prevent risk to children’s health, instead of repeating, “There is no immediate threat to health”.

TAKENAKA Ryuichi, President of Fukushima Prefecture Teachers’ Union

Bad Gene For Beer Lovers

As a scientist and science teacher I read a lot of science articles. I need to stay up to date on the latest scientific discoveries. Sometimes it supplements my teaching. But most of all, I find it an enjoyable distraction from the depressing cavalcade of assaults on the teaching profession.

Today I found a science blog posting by David Kroll, with the intriguing title: Bummer SNP doesn’t mix with beer for gastric cancer risk. For those of you who aren’t scientists, a SNP is a Single Nucleotide Polymorphism. Nucleotides are the components or subunits of DNA (Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine and Thymine). We all have some regions of DNA that are identical or virtually identical, particularly in critical genes, like those that help replicate DNA. We also have large regions of “junk” or less critical DNA that vary widely among individuals.

SNPs refer to genes or large regions of DNA that vary by only one nucleotide. While this might seem insignificant for a gene that has tens of thousands of nucleotides, it can lead to significant differences in how that gene functions. According to Kroll’s article, the Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO) in Barcelona found that a SNP in the alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH1) gene correlates with a nine-fold increase in the risk of gastric cancer for heavy beer drinkers.

The research data showed that people with one SNP had a small, 30%, increased risk for gastric cancer. However, if they drank 60 g of alcohol per day (4 glasses of wine or 4 shots) their cancer risk went up by 75%. Even more remarkable than this, they found that beer had a much more dramatic effect than wine or hard liquor, increasing cancer risk 8.72-fold.

ADH is an important enzyme for metabolizing alcohol. ADH helps convert alcohol to the carcinogenic molecule acetaldehyde, which is then normally converted to acetate by the enzyme aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH). The SNP is thought to cause an increase in acetaldehyde, which might partially explain the higher cancer risk. However, this would not explain why beer was so much more carcinogenic to carriers of this gene than other forms of alcohol. The study was unable to answer this question, probably because the increased cancer risk is due to a combination of several factors, including the effects of the SNP, and perhaps phenols or nitrosamines (both carcinogens) that are found in beer.

Bummer Gene is A Reminder of the Dangers of Alcohol

So far, none of the companies that scan your DNA for risk factors are looking for this evil beer SNP. So beer drinkers, it may be years before you even have the opportunity to find out if you carry this bummer gene. Nevertheless, even for those who lack the bummer gene, Kroll correctly points out that there are a host of other diseases caused by or exacerbated by alcohol when consumed at a rate of 60g or more per day, including cancer of the colon, esophagus, liver and pancreas, as well as cirrhosis, not to mention all those empty calories. And then there’s the enormous carbon footprint from all that scotch and cognac you dipsomaniacs go through each week.

So, a skeleton walks into a bar and orders a beer and a mop.

John Kerry walks into a bar, and the bartender says, “So, why the long face.”

A teacher walks into a bar and gets fired for being unprofessional.

Here’s how. . .

Meltdown California: The World’s First Nuclear Accident

My students have been asking me all week about the risks of fallout from Japan’s nuclear disaster. Californians have been emptying drug stores of iodine tablets in preparation for the impending assault on their thyroids. (Hopefully they haven’t already started consuming them, as the risk of iodine overdose is far more likely). Nevertheless, the disaster in Japan is horrifying, particularly for those in the middle of it. And it is not yet over. It will be some time before we know the true extent of the damage.

While Chernobyl was the worst nuclear accident to date, it was certainly not the first. Nor was the meltdown at Three Mile Island, which miraculously had relatively minimal affects on people. The first nuclear accident occurred at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL), also known as RocketDyne, in Ventura Country, California, in 1959.

According to Kim Vincent, who wrote California's Historical Nuclear Meltdown, the SSFL accident released far more radiation than Three Mile Island. The SSFL was used as a testing site for rockets and had a sodium reactor used for nuclear research during the Cold War. As such, it was fairly secretive. The details of the SSFL meltdown were essentially kept hidden from the public until UCLA researchers and few reporters tracked down the details in the afterglow of Three Mile Island’s meltdown in 1979, twenty years after the fact. Scientists and workers at the site were sworn to secrecy, one of whom never told a soul until he saw himself on a documentary about the event.

SSFL was the first U.S. commercial nuclear power plant. It was not well tested and workers were not well versed in the possible problems that could happen. On July 13^th, 1959, the reactor started to act up. Workers tried to determine the nature of the problem, but failed, and turned the reactor back on and ran it for another two weeks before discovering that 13 of 43 fuel rods had partially melted. While much smaller than the Three Mile Island reactor, SSFL is believed to have released up to 240 times more radiation than the 1979 disaster. The reason for this is that it did not have a concrete containment structure.

In 1989, the Department of Energy said that the SSFL site was still contaminated. Researchers have found increased levels of bladder cancer in the area. UCLA did a follow up report that determined that cleanup workers had cancer death rates three times higher than the general population. In 2007, the EPA declared SSFL a Superfund site.

Many workers at the site were enlisted to help clean up, including many from the rocket division who did not have any expertise in radiation containment, according to the Venture Country Star. Many were told not to wear their film badges (used to measure exposure to radiation) so they could continue helping the cleanup effort even after surpassing their radiation limits and they often wore nothing more protective than coveralls. Cleaning materials were often just dumped. They also released radioactive gas over the San Fernando Valley and did not inform the public, while the company repeatedly downplayed the event and denied there was any danger to the public.

Study Finds High Toxin Levels in Pregnant Women

Image by Justin Marty

A new study by the University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) has found over 40 toxins in the blood and urine of pregnant women. Many of the toxins have been banned in the U.S. since the 1970s, before many of the women were even born, indicating just how pervasive they are in the environment. Others are found in common household products, cooking utensils, beauty aids and processed food.

The study was published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives and is the first that actually counted the number of toxic chemicals in the bodies of pregnant women. 163 chemicals were studied and 43 of them were found in nearly every one of the 268 women tested.

The researchers also looked at non-pregnant women and found even higher levels for some chemicals, suggesting that pregnant women may be exercising greater precaution in what they eat and use in their homes. Nevertheless, even at the relatively low levels found in the women, many of these chemicals can have serious consequences for their babies, increasing the risk of birth defects, cancer, cognitive impairment and possibly even obesity.

Below is a list of some of the 43 chemicals found in the majority of the women along with their likely sources and potential health consequences:

• Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) used to be used to insulate high voltage transformers

  

  PCBs, Massachusetts Dept. Environmental Protection

  and capacitors. They were used as flame retardants, plasticizers and mineral oils. Most PCB manufacturing in the U.S. was done by Monsanto. Production was banned in the U.S. in 1979. High exposure can cause skin and liver damage, cancer or death. They can also cause cognitive impairment and neurological damage to children. PCBs both inhibit and mimic the female hormone estradiol, contributing to their mutagenic effects.

• Organochlorine pesticides are a group of chemicals used primarily as insecticides, and include chemicals like DDT, which has been banned for decades in the U.S. However, because they break down very slowly in the environment they continue to contaminate our food supply. These chemicals have been linked to cancer, as well as liver, kidney and neurological damage.
• Polybrominated diphenyl ethers are a class of banned flamed retardants that are chemically similar to PCBs. While this class of chemicals has been banned in some states (California, 2006), similar toxic flame retardants continue to be used and are actually required by law as a flame retardant in the foam of furniture and mattresses, and as insulation in electrical devices. Therefore, all Americans are continually exposed to these chemicals, many of which are known carcinogens. They can also leach into the food supply. A study in Canada found them in salmon, beef, cheese and butter. According to the EPA, they can cause thyroid, liver and neurological damage and reduce fertility.
• Bisphenol A is used to line canned foods and to make some plastics and epoxy resins. It is an endocrine disrupter that may cause neurological damage and cause mutations. It is not yet clear what health effects can be attributed to the substance. However, several preliminary studies suggest that it may have negative effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and children at current human expo­sure levels.
• Phthalates are used to soften plastics, especially PVC, but have also been used as a coating for pills, as lubricants and in eye shadow, nail polish and hairspray. This class of chemicals also causes hormone disruption and has been linked to premature puberty in girls. Some scientists believe there is a link between neonatal phthalate exposure and undescended testis in boys, though link has not yet been confirmed. Phthalates have also been linked to obesity.



Second Hand Smoke, by hsufehmi

• Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are a common class of chemicals found in smoke and are be produced by cigarettes, campfires, barbecues, candles, incense and plug-in air fresheners. Even when women avoid smoking during pregnancy, exposure can still occur from these other sources as well as from the secondhand smoke of friends, family and neighbors. Shockingly, recent research suggests that even third-hand smoke (residues that stick to walls and furniture and slowly desorb over time to enter the ambient air of a room) can persist in building for years after all smoking has ceased. Not surprisingly, third hand smoke also contains a host of toxic and carcinogenic compounds.In one study, researchers examined the homes of smokers who had moved out and that had remained empty for several months before nonsmoking renters moved in. Not only did they find higher levels of third hand smoke on the walls compared with nonsmoking homes, but the new nonsmoking renters had elevated levels of nicotine in their bodies.

The good news is that our exposures to many of these substances can be significantly reduced. For example, exposure to Bisphenol A can be minimized by avoiding the use of plastic bottles and aluminum cans made with the substance. And exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons can be reduced by avoiding smoke, especially tobacco smoke, but also candles, incense and air fresheners.