Yesterday a far-right friend (yeah, I know it's oxymoronic) sent me a link to an article in Scientific American regarding unwarranted fear of radiation exposure. I was very interested in the author's viewpoint because I am a thyroid cancer survivor.
A little, relevant history: I moved to New Mexico in 1946 at the age of one. Spent the next 19 years in New Mexico. When my thyroid cancer was diagnosed in 1972 (at age 27, with a two-year-old child I thought I'd never see to adulthood) my doctor asked me three questions: Have you ever had radiation treatment for acne? "No". Were you, as a child, treated for an enlarged thymus (treatment, evidently, was wearing a "necklace" that contained a small amount of radioactive material)? Again, "no". Did you live near any nuclear sites for a prolonged period? HELLO, Trinity Site where the first nuclear bomb was tested, two days after my birth, was right in my "backyard". Guess that qualifies, so "yes".
I read through the first half of the article before I was stopped dead in my tracks by the phrase, "lifetime death toll". I was so upset I could read no further and I promptly sent my friend the following comment:
"Disclaimer: I have not read complete article YET.
Interesting term: "lifetime death toll". I take it to mean that this is the number of people who have actually DIED from cancer, not the number of people who have HAD cancer and survived (I, for example). Per a trusted source, the incidence of thyroid cancer from Chernobyl vicinity is 500 times normal some 30 years after the nuclear power plant meltdown/explosion/whatever it was. Some of the afflicted folks are just now being diagnosed with thyroid cancer which, typically, takes many years to announce its arrival.
As we know from my experience, thyroid cancer victims can survive for a long time and will probably die from causes unrelated to thyroid cancer. This conveniently eliminates a good number of deaths from the "lifetime death toll'. I would say, basis the questions Dr. Harris asked me regarding my exposure to known (at the time) thyroid cancer causing events, that those in the Chernobyl area who have thyroid cancer would conclude they contracted it from their proximity to Chernobyl. So, even though they don't make it onto the "lifetime death toll" list, they've still gotten cancer from their exposure to radiation.
People with thyroid cancer are among the luckiest of folks afflicted with cancer. Thyroid cancer is one of the most curable, slow-growing, manageable cancers around. Would I still be here if I'd had pancreatic cancer? Probably not. Was my life adversely affected by cancer? You bet it was!!
So, while I probably won't make the "lifetime death toll" list, the type of cancer I had is scientifically linked to radiation exposure. My question to you is this: Do you think this is a fair way to spin the dangers of radiation (exposure)?"
******************************************
My brother often reminds me you can finagle statistics to support virtually any position. I feel David Ropeik's use of "lifetime death toll" adequately supports the theory that figures lie and liars figure. He negates the suffering of thyroid cancer victims because, after all, large numbers of them don't actually DIE from radiation exposure. So, tell me what you think in the poll, or in the comment section.