Can the ACA save us?

[RobertEarl]

Given the ever increasing amount of radiation we humans are releasing into our environment, and with the knowledge that radiation causes all kinds of medical maladies, maybe the ACA is a way to make sure the best possible care is to be received by everyone regardless of economic status?

In my view, it may be our only chance to alleviate mass suffering.

[tridim]

1. Watch out for radioactive bananas.

http://chemistry.about.com/b/2011/07/10/bananas-are-radioactive.htm

Yes the ACA will help everyone be more healthy. That's the whole point.

[RobertEarl]

3. Bananas?

With potassium? These are dangerous? I thought potassium is an important part of life as we know it. Unlike plutonium and another 100 elements that our bodies are not adapted to, but which now surround us, day-in-day-out.

Life on this planet has adapted to some naturally occurring radioactive elements. It is the man-made ones that cause our bodies' these new problems.

Surely you would not be suggesting that a potassium particle is as dangerous as a plutonium particle?

[Trekologer]

5. Yes, potassium is radioactive

And plutonium is a naturally occurring element.

The radiation caused by potassium in bananas is usually the source of radiation that an average person is exposed to.

[RobertEarl]

7. So you must know this, then?

That man-made radioactive cesium is taken up by the body which recognizes cesium same as potassium. And in replacing the potassium in the body with the toxic cesium, leukemia is often a result?

Did you also know that the US was dusted with radioactive cesium after Fukushima blew up? And that the Pacific is now being polluted with cesium which has been found in tuna off the coast of the US?

[Humanist_Activist]

2. Actually, background radiation from artificial atmospheric sources has been decreasing since 1963...

after the test ban treaty has been instituted, in fact, background levels are beginning to reach, on average, what it was before we learned how to split the atom.

This is, of course, worldwide, certain localities(Chernobyl, Fukashima) are, of course, at much higher(and unsafe) levels, but for most places in the world, you are more likely to get exposed to natural radiation sources than artificial ones in damaging doses, such as Radon, UV, etc.

[RobertEarl]

4. Really?

You have a link detailing your theory that background radiation is on the decrease? Be good to see.....

The problem lies, as detailed above, that the man-made particles are not natural, like the sun, and our bodies are not adapted. Note the increased rate of cancers and other maladies. Detrimental radiation effects from man-made particles is not a theory. And nuclear radiation is increasing.

[Humanist_Activist]

6. Here's a wikipedia article on it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation#Atmospheric_nuclear_testing

Also, I don't see the point of man made versus natural, we aren't adapted to survive radon poisoning, and that's completely natural, in fact, even young and healthy people will develop cancer and die rather quickly from it. Its the levels of radiation that matter, not where it comes from.

Also, evidence that nuclear radiation contamination is increasing?

The increased rates of cancers and other maladies is more likely attributed to our longer lifespans compared to in the past, even just 100 years ago, a person was considered rather old at the age of 50 or so, nowadays, that's middle aged. Not to mention our ability to properly diagnose things such as cancer. Cancer has always been with us, hell its one of the first diseases found in an actual Homo Sapien skeleton, bone cancer. For most of human history, people died of "primary-symptom-disease", nowadays we can properly diagnose such diseases, and even properly treat them.

To give an example, there were points in history where most children died before the age of 5, how much you wanna bet that a significant fraction of those kids died due to childhood leukemia?

[RobertEarl]

8. That tells us not much

And does not back up your theory that background radiation levels are decreasing. Ask yourself: Why did they stop atmospheric testing? The answer is that medical science found the radiation causing problems.

Here is a relevant history and science based observation:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/51585989-82/nuclear-radiation-scientists-bullets.html.csp

There is no 'safe' exposure to radiation

Bioaccumulation is one reason why it is dishonest to equate the danger to humans living 5,000 miles away from Japan with the minute concentrations measured in our air. If we tried, we would now likely be able to measure radioactive iodine, cesium, and strontium bioaccumulating in human embryos in this country. Pregnant women, are you OK with that?

Hermann Mueller, another Nobel Prize winner, is one of many scientists who would not have been OK with that. In a 1964 study, "Radiation and Heredity", Mueller spelled out the genetic damage of ionizing radiation on humans. He predicted the gradual reduction of the survival of the human species as exposure to radioactivity steadily increased. Indeed, sperm counts, sperm viability and fertility rates worldwide have been dropping for decades.

These scientists and their warnings have never been disproven, but they are currently widely ignored. Their message is very clear: Virtually every human on Earth carries the nuclear legacy, a genetic footprint contaminated by the Cold War, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, the 400-plus nuclear power plants that have not melted down and now Fukushima.

Albert Einstein said, "The splitting of the atom changed everything, save man's mode of thinking; thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophe."

[Humanist_Activist]

10. Of course there are "safe" levels of radiation, because we have been surrounded and exposed to it...

for the lifespan of our entire species, there's no "no radiation" zones anywhere in the entire universe.

Normal levels of background radiation are just that, normal, it varies by location, but generally it is safe, because our species evolved in that environment.

The issue is that we have radically increased this background radiation due to atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. It was recognized that this increases the atmospheric levels of radiation, so it was stopped, and those levels have been dropping since. But, and this is important, it can never drop to zero rems, that's impossible.

People treat radiation as if it were some type of new boogeyman that we created, uhm, no, its far from that, again, people have been carrying radioactive isotopes for thousands of years, and other species for millions, in fact, carrying certain radioactive isotopes is a key way of dating fossils.

Splitting the atom did change everything, by making us capable of sterilizing the surface of the Earth with dangerous levels of radiation.

In addition, the sperm count studies have not been long term, vary widely by region, and are inconclusive, at best.

[RobertEarl]

9. Even Nukers are sounding the alarm over the danger

Ex-top U.S. nuclear regulator counsels end to atomic power
BY KAZUAKI NAGATA
SEP 24, 2013

The ongoing crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 plant is a sign that the world needs to seriously rethink nuclear safety and consider possibly ending its dependence on atomic power, the former chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Tuesday in Tokyo.

DU link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112754507