The radiation found is determined to be from Japan's plant, called Fukushima, because the timing as well as the isotopes found of radiation match the kind that the plant emitted.
The way that public health is being exemplified in this situation is the way that international organizations are working together to try and defend the health of the whole human race. the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organization are beginning to work more closely with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, and this situation that began in Japan is what brought on this cohesive teamwork.
The reason that this is important it because now if we can work internationally as both retrospective and prospective defendants of public health, then we can try and minimize the effects of tragedies like the Fukushima plant explosion the best that we are able.
Another thing that this article brings to light is the way that the media reaches the general public on situations such as this. Word has gotten out that by taking potassium iodide, citizens here in America will be protected from the radiation. The first point to consider is that if the media portrayed the situation completely accurately, then citizens in America should have the understanding that the radiation is not present at a harmful level. However, people can reasonably see a cause for alarm. So, it is very important to stress the harmful effects that taking potassium iodide has on the body and hopefully halt the consumption of these harmful drugs.
One way that could possibly be very effective to deal with this is to take the potassium iodide off any over the counter shelves until the excitement from the radiation scare has passed. However, this would also lend itself to scrutiny because people may actually need potassium iodide for certain medical conditions, and I am in no position to judge what the pros and cons of this action would be anyways. However, I just think that all of the public health awareness that has stemmed from this tragic event is very good to analyze and keep in mind when moving forward.
This article hits fairly close to home for me as I live in California. But to say there has been an agitation among the public is fairly inaccurate. While a similar article featured in local news, there really hasn't been much of a reaction to the news. In fact, most people don't seem to realize that the last week of rain has seen an increase in levels of radiation. So until the government or the Atomic Agency issues a statement declaring the radiation levels are harmful, the general public probably won't take much notice.
ReplyDeleteFor anyone curious on how iodine is beneficial in preventing the damaging effects of radiation: http://www.virginiahopkinshealthwatch.com/2011/03/japan-radiation-and-iodine/
Reading this article and Max's comment made me ponder the relationship between a public health hazard and the public's perception of that hazard. I'm impressed by the media's ability to shape public reactions to events that are important for public health.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason public health specialists advise against unregulated iodine supplementation is that the risks of widespread uninformed self-treatment outweigh the benefits. It is true that Iodine supplementation can reduce the effects of radioactive iodine on thyroid functioning but it would be misleading to suggest that iodine can immunize people against radiation.
Non-radioactive isotopes of Iodine can compete with radioactive isotopes of the element for incorporation into thyroid hormone the body synthesized naturally.
As the CNN article mentioned, too much iodine can be dangerous for any individual, leading to hyperthyroidism-like symptoms.
On a related note, many countries sell iodized salt and have carried out education campaigns to inform the public about the benefits of consuming iodized salt. This is because iodine deficiency is responsible for a significant proportion of mental retardation in children. Production of iodized salt began in the U.S. in 1924. South Africa began selling only iodized salt in 1990.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/health/16iodine.html?_r=1&fta=y
I have been paying fairly close attention to this situation and have also been amazed by how much the media shapes citizens views of public health and health safety. Admittedly I know very little about protecting myself from radiation, but everything I know now I have learned from the media basically. This has positive and negative effects on public health. Positively, it is now much easier to spread knowledge quickly and effectively as can be seen in this disaster in Japan. The word got out in less than a week around the world about the radiation problems and ways to protect oneself. Negatively, mass media is not always the best source to use for our health information and ways to protect ourselves and false information can also be spread quickly.
ReplyDeleteOn using potassium iodine for protection, I heard it can only be taken once and there is about a 48 hour window for protection from radiation, but once again this is only what I heard from the media.
Agreed on the points above. I have a friend in Japan who I have been keeping especially close contact with as of late. He's been saying that much of the media attention has been shifted from the natural disaster side of the event to the radiation. While it would appear that no clear leader has emerged from the crisis, he told me that the director of the plant and the Prime Minister as well as the Tokyo Electric rep and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology have been doing live talks on TV and going into the shelters to make an emotional connection and apologies to grieving families. However he also described how there is very widespread government mistrust as of now, that they are hiding information. Media definitely has a huge role in the outcome of any event, and when public emotions and panic are at a high they are even more vulnerable to media skew.
ReplyDelete