Friday, May 22, 2020

Radiation How Much Is Safe

Growing public concern about possible radiation exposure during the 2011 nuclear crisis in Japan raised questions about radiation safety: What is the relative safety of radiation at various levels?How much radiation is safe?How much radiation is dangerous or, potentially, lethal? Such concerns about radiation safety and public health prompted officials in many countries to quickly offer assurances that the radiation exposure experienced by people in the United States and other countries, and most parts of Japan, is safe and poses no health risk. In their eagerness to calm public fears about the safety of radiation and the short-term health risks of radiation exposure from the damaged nuclear reactors in Japan, however, government officials may have ignored or glossed over the potential long-term health risks and cumulative effects of radiation. Radiation Is Never Safe There is no safe level of radiation, said Dr. Jeff Patterson, immediate past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility, a radiation exposure expert, and a practicing family doctor in Madison, Wisconsin. Every dose of radiation has the potential to cause cancers, and we know that there are other damaging effects of radiation as well. The history of the radiation industry, all the way back [to] the discovery of X-rays ... is one of understanding that principle. Radiation Damage Is Cumulative We know that radiation is not safe. The damage is cumulative, and so we try and limit how much radiation exposure we get, Patterson said, noting that even during medical procedures, such as dental or orthopedic X-rays, patients wear thyroid shields and lead aprons to protect them from radiation. Radiologists may add to their protective wardrobe lead-lined gloves and special glasses to protect their corneas because you can get cataracts from radiation. Patterson made his remarks to reporters during a panel discussion about the Japan nuclear crisis at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, on March 18, 2011. The event was hosted by Friends of the Earth and featured two other nuclear experts: Peter Bradford, who was a member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission during the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979 and is a former chair of the Maine and New York utility commissions; and Robert Alvarez, senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies and former senior policy adviser for six years to the U.S. Energy Secretary and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for National Security and the Environment. To support his statements, Patterson cited a National Academy of Sciences report, The Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, which concluded that radiation is a direct linear relationship [of] dose to damage, and that every dose of radiation has the potential to cause cancers. Radiation Effects Last Forever Patterson also addressed the difficulty of managing the risks of nuclear energy, and assessing the health and environmental damage caused by nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and the earthquake-and-tsunami-generated crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex in Japan. Most accidents [and] natural [disasters], like Hurricane Katrina, have a beginning, a middle, and an end, Patterson said. We pack up, we repair things, and we carry on. But nuclear accidents are much, much different ... They have a beginning, and ... the middle may go on for some time ... but the end never comes. This just goes on forever. Because the effects of radiation go on forever. How many of these incidents can we tolerate before we realize that this is absolutely the wrong path to be taking? It’s an attempt to manage the unmanageable, Patterson said. There’s no way to be sure that this won’t happen again. In fact, it will happen again. History repeats itself. More Honesty About Radiation Safety Needed And speaking of history, the history of the nuclear industry has been one of minimization and cover up ... in regard to the effects of radiation [and] what has happened in these accidents, Patterson said. And that really has to change. Our government has to be open and honest with us about what’s happening there. Otherwise the fear, the concerns, just get greater. Radiation Safety and Damage Cannot Be Assessed Short-Term Asked by a reporter to explain reports that the Chernobyl nuclear accident has had no serious lasting effects on people or wildlife in the area, Patterson said the official reports on Chernobyl dont match the scientific data. Documented effects of radiation released during the Chernobyl accident include thousands of deaths due to thyroid cancer, studies showing genetic defects in many insect species around Chernobyl, and animals hundreds of miles from Chernobyl that still cant be slaughtered for meat because of the radioactive Cesium in their bodies. Yet Patterson pointed out that even those assessments are inevitably premature and incomplete. Twenty-five years after the Chernobyl accident, the people in Belarus are still eating radiation from the mushrooms and things that they gather in the forest that are high in Cesium, Patterson said. And so this does, indeed, go on and on. It’s one thing to say in a brief picture that there’s no damage. It’s another thing to look at this over 60 or 70 or 100 years, which is the time length we have to follow this. Most of us are not going to be around for the end of that experiment, he said. We’re putting it on our children and grandchildren. Edited by Frederic Beaudry

Friday, May 8, 2020

Caring For The Oral Cancer Patient - 1481 Words

Caring for the Oral Cancer Patient Sonja Black Brown Mackie College Greenville Oral cancer is considered to be any cancer that affects the head or neck with the exclusion of the brain. According to The Oral Cancer Foundation, over 43 thousand people will be diagnosed with oral cancer yearly and of that number over 8 thousand of these cases will result in death (Hill, Deitz, Sax, 2014, p. para 1). Oral cancer consists of squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, Kaposi’s sarcoma, lymphoma, and benign oral cavity tumors. Squamous cell carcinoma is the most common type of oral cancer and is responsible for at least 90% of all oral cancers (Ignatavicius Workman, 2013, p. 1196). Oral cancer is initially formed by an†¦show more content†¦1197). The results of an evidence-based study concluded that serum and saliva might also be beneficial when used as a diagnostic test marker for oral cancer (Dadhich, Prabhu, Pai, D Souza, Harish, Jose, 2014). Risk Factors As with most diseases, prevention is the best approach and even though there is no definite answer to why cancer develops, there are several risk factors that may suggest that oral cancer is probable. The use of tobacco and alcohol increase the risk of developing oral cancer as so does the incident of contracting a HPV infection, which is the Human Papillomavirus (Hill, Deitz, Sax, 2014, p. para 6). According to recent studies, HPV is becoming the leading factor in patients with oral cancer. Patients should be assessed and screened for alcohol and tobacco abuse as well as the possibility of exposure to the HPV virus to determine their risk for oral cancer. Some other risk factors that may not be apparent are the exposure to the sun for prolonged periods of time without an effective sunscreen agent and a history of previous oral cancer (Hill, Deitz, Sax, 2014). A comprehensive assessment should be performed to measure the probability of this patient developing oral cancer. Home Care Management Patients should be educated on how to maintain their health while they are at

Wednesday, May 6, 2020

Comparison Between of Mice and Men and What’s Eating Gilbert Grape Free Essays

They both have similar qualities that relate in each story. In Steinbeck’s novel, Of Mice and Men, the time period is set in the 1930s. In the movie Whats Eating Gilbert Grape, it is set more in the modern times. We will write a custom essay sample on Comparison Between of Mice and Men and What’s Eating Gilbert Grape or any similar topic only for you Order Now The characters act and are similar in a lot of ways. Gilbert is a teenager that is struggling to support his family after his father killed himself. Gilbert relates to George because they are both constantly having to take care of someone else. George is always having to take care of Lennie. Lennie is also a mentally handicapped man who is the reason why they are in trouble most of the time. Lennie and Arnie are exactly the same.They both have a â€Å"fatherly† figure that is always there to take care of them and they both are diagnosed with mentally retardation. Although the time period is different, both stories follow along with the same story line. They both are struggling with living in a depressing world and always looking for opportunities for work. Betty Carver is a married mother of two children who is lonely. Her husband is a sales man and is considered mean. They relate to Curley and his wife. Curley is a land owner and is the boss of the workers. Curley’s wife is always looking for attention but is not someone you want to mess around with.They both are seducing younger men which in the end turns out to be trouble. Bonnie, the mother of the grape family, is struggling with being morbidly obese and widowed. She is laughed at and made fun of when seen. She reminds me of Crook. Crook is a black man who is put down because of his color. He doesn’t like to be   around anyone he doesn’t know. In the end, both George and Gilbert have to make a big decision. George has to either killer Lennie or run away again and Gilbert has to either let his mother be humiliated by being lifted out by a crane or burn the house down with her inside of it. How to cite Comparison Between of Mice and Men and What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, Papers