Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

caraher

(6,278 posts)
24. That's far from clear
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:47 PM
Nov 2012

Last edited Mon Nov 26, 2012, 01:43 PM - Edit history (2)

Even if you take the author of your link at face value in blaming poor water quality, it's not clear that radium is the most important, or even a very important, contributor to low life expectancy. In fact, since life expectancy figures are dominated by causes of death for the very young, early deaths matter most. But the diseases associated with radium ingestion typically take years to develop.

Inhaled or ingested radium increases the risk of developing such diseases as lymphoma, bone cancer, and diseases that affect the formation of blood, such as leukemia and aplastic anemia. These effects usually take years to develop.


It's very unlikely that all radium-caused cases of those diseases, combined, account for the low life expectancy in Mississippi, especially when one considers that many (and probably most) of them come from other factors.
We've seen the effect first hand in Iraq FleetwoodMac Nov 2012 #1
Background radiation. Not DU sybylla Nov 2012 #3
Yes, but if very low levels of background radiation are harmful daleo Nov 2012 #12
But hadn't that already been proven? sybylla Nov 2012 #14
Well, this supports danger from low level radiation in general daleo Nov 2012 #21
Uranium is a poisonous heavy metal like mercury or lead. hunter Nov 2012 #19
Re. Exposures from Nuclear Plants marions ghost Nov 2012 #2
I thought that comment was potentially misleading caraher Nov 2012 #5
OK marions ghost Nov 2012 #8
Actually... PamW Nov 2012 #11
WRONG!!! PamW Nov 2012 #9
Thanks, Pam RobertEarl Nov 2012 #16
"there's an attempt in the industry to downplay the doses that the populations are getting" bananas Nov 2012 #18
+1 redqueen Nov 2012 #28
Well, this makes me feel fantastic about all the radiation I'm getting for my cancer. Evoman Nov 2012 #4
Please don't think that. Zoeisright Nov 2012 #17
Low level radiation Steviehh Nov 2012 #6
You understood wrong. PamW Nov 2012 #10
The higher the energy the photon, the greater the chance davepdx Nov 2012 #20
Also explains counties in the US with lowest life expectancies toddmiller Nov 2012 #7
That's far from clear caraher Nov 2012 #24
That's far from clear toddmiller Nov 2012 #25
"Also explains counties in the US with lowest life expectancies" caraher Nov 2012 #26
Post removed Post removed Nov 2012 #27
I think I've been here long enough to know what "works" caraher Nov 2012 #29
I read the links and your wrong and miller is correct preventivePhD Nov 2012 #30
There goes the SouthWest One_Life_To_Give Nov 2012 #13
Fortunately the French colorado_ufo Nov 2012 #15
If you're talking about doses as low as natural background level, Heywood J Nov 2012 #22
Ann Coulter: Radiation Is 'Good For You' PerceptionManagement Nov 2012 #23
K & R Quantess Nov 2012 #31
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Even Low-Level Radioactiv...»Reply #24