Pollution and Cancer in Children

[watertower]

Living in pollution hotspots ups chance of kiddie cancer, study saysMany childhood cancers likely have environmental causes, according to a new study from the U.K.'s Birmingham University. Women who live within a half-mile radius of emission hotspots such as industrial areas and major roads, it says, are two to four times more likely than others to bear children who develop cancer before age 16. George Knox, the study’s author, compared maps of chemical emissions in the U.K. against the medical records of kids who died of cancer between 1966 and 1980. “Most childhood cancers are probably initiated by close perinatal encounters with one or more of these high emission sources,” he said. “The low atmospheric levels of these substances suggest the mother may breathe them in, with carcinogens passing across the placenta.” The study recommended locating major pollution sources away from population centers, reducing pollution where possible, and conducting more research.

Or… how about stopping pollution altogether!!! The Children suffer too much for the sake of profit.For the whole story:news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/story.jsp?story=601500

 

[geezerbob]

Watertower, your goal is so lofty that it is unattainable. Think about it. If we shut down the power plants, everyone will have to provide their own heat for cooking and comfort. How much pollution will that produce? Remember the smoke from all the dung fires in China that drifted across India and all the trouble it caused? Cleaning up the plants is a good thing. Shutting them down is quite another. You will only succeed in replacing polution from one source with more pollution from many sources.

I remember going through a West Virginia town about forty years ago. Everything was in shades of gray from the coal that everyone burned in their homes. I went through the same town a couple of years ago and it didn’t look like the same place. The bricks were red, the paint was white, and you could actually see the lines on the road. So, at least there, pollution is much less than it used to be.

If we eliminate cars and go back to horses, what are we going to do with the mountains of horse droppings? And, think about the starvation that would be caused by our inability to produce enough food or get it to market before it spoiled. So, are lots of children starving to death better than a few children dying from pollution induced cancer? You tell me.

US industry and government has reduced pollution to a fraction of what it was fifty years ago and it’s still going down. What will it take to please the tree huggers of the world? You set impossible absolutes and seem totally unwilling to compromise, while failing to recognize the good that has already been done and is being done. Plus, you don’t offer any alternatives that will produce less pollution.

I, for one, don’t want to go back to the “good old days” of my youth. If you wanted heat, you went outside, got a bucket of coal and fired up the Warm Morning stove. Likewise the laundry heater if you wanted hot water. The city dumped raw sewage in the river. Auto brake linings were made of asbestos and seldom lasted more than 15K miles. Cars got about 12 miles per gallon and leaked and burned oil. Milk and meat frequently had to be thrown out because the animals ate the wrong vegetation in the pasture. Thanks, but I’ll settle for the way things are now!