Johnson, George. "When Radiation Isn’t the Real Risk." The New York Times. The New York Times, 21 Sept. 2015. Web. 22 Sept. 2015.
When Radiation Isn’t the Real Risk
In the article, When Radiation Isn’t the Real Risk, George Johnson claims that the 1,600 deaths following the nuclear accident at Fukushima weren’t caused by radiation, but by injuries from the evacuation itself. This was confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even in the years to come, the number of workers with cancer is predicted to be very low, almost unnoticeable. Dr. Mohan Doss, a medical physicist, said that “The government basically panicked”. They demanded all the hospitals and nursing homes be evacuated which ended up killing some because there wasn’t the necessary technology to care for people who were in the ICU. As well as this, there were also suicides because people were scared that the radiation would kill them. Most of the radiation ended up being spread over the sea of diluted over land. Some scientists even think that low doses of radiation are actually beneficial. Most of the population are only exposed to about 2.4 millisieverts a year. A full millisievert would only impose about 5 deadly cancers throughout 100,000 people. As well as this, lab experiments also show that low exposures to radiation activate the immune system and let out protective antioxidants, protecting against all cancers. However, findings are often disputed and other factors like whether people smoke and their age also come into question. These studies are not only important in trying to disprove the past, but also are important to ease the fear of radiation.
This article is very important in terms of affecting society. Many people have a fear of radiation, especially after events like the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This article can open people’s eyes to the benefits of small amounts of radiation and might cause less panic and less death in the future. The fear of radiation also causes people not to get lifesaving diagnostic tests and radiotherapies. As the author said, “Trying to avoid the horror we imagine, we risk creating ones that are real”. These studies and article won’t change some people’s views immediately, but they can get people talking and may spark other experiments or investigations.
I thought this article was very well written. The author presented the situation and different studies in an well, easy to understand manner. He also did a good job of proving his argument, stating that the real fear should not be radiation. In addition, he addressed the counterargument, that there are other factors that come into play with diagnosing the causes of cancer. However, the article could have given more examples as well as more of a background on radiation and what it is. Overall, I thought it was a very well written, insightful article that could change a person’s perspective on radiation, ultimately saving some people’s lives.
I thought that this article was very well-written and helped give a view on radiation that I hadn’t heard before. I thought Emily did a very good job in telling about how people died during the emergencies, during the evacuation, rather than due to radiation. The fact that the majority of the deaths occurred because of evacuation of patients in critical condition, and suicides due to fear was clearly emphasized. I also thought that she did a good job of describing how radiation can also be beneficial. Rather than just stating this, she gave examples of how radiation can help activate the immune system and release helpful antioxidants. This gave a better understanding as to why people shouldn’t be very concerned about radiation. Lastly, she did a very good job of connecting this problem into our world. She showed how during times of disaster like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, our actions of evacuation were more harmful than the radiation. She also used a quote that really emphasized this idea, that in trying to escape the horror (radiation) we created new horror (more deaths).
ReplyDeleteI thought that there was some ambiguity in parts of the summary. I thought that the labs could have been described in more detail, to better understand how the scientists were gaining this data. I think it would be important to know how the scientists gained the information on how small amounts of radiation are beneficial. I also thought that it was confusing when she mentioned how most people are exposed to 2.4 millisieverts of radiation a year, and that a millisievert of radiation can cause 5 deadly cancers throughout 100,000 people. I felt like that is a lot of people and that isn’t even the full amount of radiation that people are normally exposed to per year. So I feel as though she could have further explained to what extent we should fear radiation, because it is clear from the statistics that even a small amount (less that what an average person is exposed to per year) can cause cancer in 100,000 people.
I thought that this article was very interesting, because radiation is something that people fear, from getting x-rays, to the microwaves in their own homes. Today people try to avoid radiation, and many have fears of it causing cancer. I read this review because I had never seen a side taken that showed how many of these deaths during disasters, weren't really radiation, but problems during evacuation. I always thought that small amounts of radiation weren’t harmful, but I never knew that is was beneficial too. I think that this will change how I look at radiation, and not be as concerned with its effects. Although this is true, I still think there is reason to be wary, because the statistics till showed that radiation affects people (just a lesser amount). I am interested to see if further studies come out supporting the information presented here.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis article was written in a way that I could understand, and it was easy to follow because of the short paragraphs. It gave a new perspective on radiation. This article primarily focused on how “no one has been killed or sickened by the radiation,” how the panic from this emergency caused more damage than the actual radiation, and how there may be some positive outcomes of radiation (Johnson). Emily highlighted these aspects in a detailed manner, which having read after the article emphasized the points of it even more. It is evident that people died because of the evacuation, and not because of the radiation. She noted that unfortunately many of the deaths were suicides because of the stress and fear of the radiation that was heightened from the evacuation, and many patients in already critical condition died.
ReplyDeleteEmily explained how some scientists believe that all doses of radiation, even extremely small ones, have an adverse effect on the patient, while other scientists believe that low doses are harmless and can be beneficial. She explained this through the results of lab experiments which show that low exposures of radiation “activate the immune system and let out protective antioxidants, protecting against all cancers” (Conway). However, ceteris paribus does not apply to real life situations because there are often other factors that may alter the results of an experiment, like smoking and age; although the goal of these experiments was to ease the fear of radiation, the results are debatable. This article did not put me at ease, but it got me thinking if in the future scientists will insist on receiving a dose of radiation every couple of years to prevent cancer; today this may sound crazy, but who knows about the future?
Emily connected this article to the major issues of our world concerning nuclear bombs. She and the author both reminded me of the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the author stated that these events struck fear into people concerning radiation. This makes sense because hundreds of thousands of people were mutilated at those attacks, and there were also birth defects in the future from the radiation. The author did not touch on what the outcome of these attacks were, which would have been helpful to those who do not know how harmful those large doses of radiation were. Also, the labs that were done to prove his point were not described in detail, so as I stated before the results may not be accurate. Without knowing how many trials and what the setup even was, it is hard to understand and believe the facts given. It would have added another element to the article if we could see or read about the experiment because benefits of radiation is a very interesting topic. There were also some facts in the article summary about how less than the average human exposure to radiation can cause five deadly cancers; the way Emily phrased this was a bit confusing, so it would’ve been helpful if she explained it more.
ReplyDeleteThe title of this article really intrigued me because at first it made me think that maybe radiation isn’t the issue with many cancer patients, but the article did not make me believe that. My best friend does not have a microwave in her home because her mom fears the radiation from it. At my dad’s house he does not let people stand near the microwave when it is on because of the fear of radiation. This is clearly a prominent fear in society today, which is why this article got my attention just from the headline; I read it because it described positive and negative outcomes from radiation, which I had not been exposed to. The huge issue that goes along with radiation is will I get cancer from it? Scientists have said that placing a laptop on your lap can cause cancer, plastic can cause cancer, and radiation can cause cancer. Many things can cause cancer, but the largest fear is from radiation. This article did not change my concern about radiation; I still think people should avoid radiation. For example, pregnant doctors cannot be near x-ray machines while they are in use, and this is obviously for a reason. Radiation is harmful. However, I am still interested in further investigation on radiation.
The main aspect of this article was the claim that the majority of the deaths caused by the nuclear accident at the Fukushima power plant was from the way the evacuation was carried out and not from the radiation. Things that caused death included evacuation of hospitals, and suicide caused by the thought of impending death. Emily also talked about how the article said that small amounts of radiation are actually good for us and that it can help with the immune system. She also did a good job at discussing why the results of these studies will benefit society, mainly that it would hopefully cause less panic the next time there is a nuclear disaster.
ReplyDeleteEmily did not really discuss the effects of large doses of radiation or what bad things could happen even when exposed to small amounts of radiation. She could have added how radiation negatively affects humans and how many people are affected in a negative manor after being exposed to radiation. Another thing that was confusing was the outcome of the study. If the average person is exposed to 2.4 millisieverts of radiation a year and 5 in 100,000 people get cancer from 1 millisievert of radiation each year does that mean that 12 people out of 100,000 on average get cancer each year from radiation. That seems like a very high number. It would have been nice for her to explain how the study was conducted and how the data should be interpreted.
The main thing that I learned upon reading this article is that the main thing that we should worry about if there is to be another nuclear disaster is panic not necessarily the amount of radiation that we are exposed too. This helped me see how important it is for people and governments around a nuclear site need to be prepared for the worst. Without a solid plan chaos ensues and more deaths are bound to happen. This article show that you should not be concerned about the little bits of radiation you are exposed to on a daily basis from electronic devices. Small doses can actually help you and you need to be exposed to a lot of radiation for it to cause cancer. I chose this article because it took a different standpoint than usual. Most of the times people try to make us fear radiation, but this article showed me that you don’t always need to fear it.
Emily,
ReplyDeleteI think this review was very well-written and very informative. I found you did a very good job with explaining how deaths happened during the emergencies, during the evacuation, and not because to radiation. This was good because it showed that the radiation itself was not that big of an issue. I also think you did a good job with explaining why these studies will benefit society, mainly that it would hopefully cause less panic the next time there is a nuclear disaster. I also enjoyed how you explained that radiation could potentially be good for us, which I found very interesting.
One thing I think you could have improved upon would have been to maybe do a little better in explaining the effects of large doses of radiation. Another thing that maybe you could have elaborated on is maybe what negative effects could be obtained when exposed to small amounts of radiation.
A major reason for this entire article being so interesting is the fact that it is something relatable in our lives. An example of this is the fear of radiation in common medicinal purposes, such as X-rays. One thing I specifically found very intriguing was when you said that the radiation could maybe be good for us. I had always been told that radiation is very bad for you, but with this article, I have learned a lot about radiation and its effects.