Over ‘veilige ondergrenzen’
Anti-rokers blijven voortdurend beweren dat een veilige ondergrens voor omgevingsrook niet bestaat. Daarom, beweren zij, kan ventilatie nooit een oplossing zijn.
Datzelfde uitgangspunt wordt door veel politici ook gedeeld voor het vóórkomen van straling. Alle straling is funest volgens hun opvattingen en zal op de lange duur tot de ontwikkeling van kanker lijden.
Poolse wetenschappers onderzochten de effecten van de ramp van Tsjernobyl en ontdekten dat de gevolgen veel minder ernstig waren dan indertijd in de media en door politici werd voorspeld. Ze ontdekten zelfs dat veel mensen die aan beperkte doses van straling werden blootgesteld MINDER kans op kanker vertoonden. met andere woorden: een klein beetje straling is gezond.
Het lijkt weer Hormesis aan het werk. Maar de huidige medische en politieke elite wil daar nog steeds niet aan. Waarom? Zouden er teveel belangen mee gemoeid zijn????!!!
A new report tells us that the number of future cancer deaths as a consequence of the disaster in Chernobyl has been adjusted downward from tens or even hundreds of thousands to 4,000. But even this estimate may be way too high. It is quite likely that Russian health statisticians will one day have to register a cancer deficit among the people who were irradiated in 1986 — that many people in the area do not have cancer as a result of their extra doses of radiation.
This is the view of Prof. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, from Poland, a longtime member of the United Nations Scientific Commission on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (Unscear) and author of hundreds of studies in the peer reviewed radiological literature. In 1986 he was responsible for the distribution of supplemental Iodine to 18 million Poles (to protect their thyroid glands), but afterwards he considered those and other measures a complete waste of time and money. Only about 140 people around the reactor received very high doses (28 of them died as a result), the rest of the population received an extra dose that was lower than normal background radiation (some were evacuated, to a place where natural background radiation was substantially higher).
The 4,000 future cancer cases, Jaworowski tells me over the phone, “are just a theoretical construction. We will never see them.” One reason for this is that epidemiologists lack the instruments to identify these people in the group of 600,000 that received extra radiation.
But more important is that these cancer deaths will never occur. Or better: no doubt some of these people will develop cancer but it will have nothing to do with the radiation they received from the exploding power plant.
