4 ms·
I did though. From the article: “By the early 1950's, Yamaguchi and his wife Hisako felt strong enough to try [to have children], and the early 50s, they had t
by Samuel_Michon 14y ago
I did though. From the article:
“By the early 1950's, Yamaguchi and his wife Hisako felt strong enough to try [to have children], and the early 50s, they had two girls, Naoko and Toshiko. Both were born without birth defects, though when they reached their teenage years, they said they got sick more often than some of their friends. Both are still alive. The Yamaguchis' young son, Kasutoshi, lived to be 58 and died of cancer.”
Sure, the Japanese had expected the effects to be worse, but still, this doesn't sound like a glowing recommendation to me to have kids after having been exposed to mad amounts of radiation.
From the Atomic Bomb Museum:
“A Nagasaki survey of 98 pregnant women exposed at a distance of 2.0 km from ground zero and 113 pregnant women exposed at 4.0 and 5.0 km from ground zero, showed a high percentage of neonatal and infantile deaths for those exposed within a 2.0 km range, as well as signs of acute radiation illness such as loss of hair, bleeding tendency, and inner mouth lesions. Mental retardation was noted in 25% of newborn survivors.
Besides high mortality rates, retarded growth and development was also indicated. Most notable in those exposed within 1.0–5.0 km of ground zero were retarded stature, underweight, and smaller head circumference, a condition called microcephaly, one of the most pathetic aftereffects of the atomic bombings, especially when accompanied by mental retardation.
Genetic surveys have not yielded positive evidence of genetic hazards due to atomic bomb radiation. Even so, possible A-bomb-induced effects such as spontaneous abortions, stillbirths, congenital malformations, and more, require continued study.”
http://atomicbombmuseum.org/3_health.shtml http://atomicbombmuseum.org/3_health.shtml
Or this one, 24 years after the Chernobyl disaster (no bombing, but high radiation nonetheless):
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/24/us-defect-chernobyl-idUSTRE62N4L820100324 http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/24/us-defect-chernoby...
- ars 14y agoWow, that's got to be one of the most blatant strawmen arguments I've seen recently. You aren't even trying to hide it. Article is about getting pregnant, and you post info about people who are already pregnant. Well obviously they are different. What I don't understand is why you think they are the same. (I guess that's why you didn't hide it? You don't even realize there is a difference?) > this doesn't sound like a glowing recommendation And you prefer to ignore the studies that found no problems? Because some girls "thought they got sick more often"?
- Samuel_Michon 14y agoThe title of the article makes no distinction between victims who were already pregnant during the incidents and those who weren't. When trying to answer “If you are hit by two atomic bombs, should you have kids?”, I believe it's fair to take into account both situations. And then I believe the general answer is ‘No’. More in line with the article the headline could've been “If you're hit by an atomic bomb, is it possible to have kids years after?”. To which apparently the answer is ‘Yes’.
- ars 14y agoIf you are pregnant you basically already have kids, they are just not born yet. (i.e. give it time and it will happen, as opposed to getting pregnant which requires action.) (i.e. it says "have" which means a future action not "keep" meaning inaction - if you want to nitpick.) Deciding to abort a baby due to bomb exposure is a completely different question, both morally and biologically. The situations are so incredibly different (DNA can repair things a living organism can not) that yet again I'm amazed at how you combine them. Is it ignorance? Trolling? A simple refusal to back down from a mistake?
- Samuel_Michon 14y agoI see where you're coming from. However, I simply disagree with you. Which doesn't per se mean I'm ignorant, trolling, or refusing to back down from a mistake. To me, 'Having children' means you birth them and raise them. By shooting your sperm during unprotected sex you didn't just 'make babies' or 'have children'. I personally believe life does not start at conception, and as long as they look like tadpoles, I won't acknowledge them as something human. Heck, I even have my doubts about newborns. I find babies annoying and ugly as sin, and I doubt they have much of a psyche to speak of. (Granted, the last statement may not be a healthy perspective; I blame eXistenZ — http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120907/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120907/ )
- greedo 14y agoJust out of curiosity (and not wanting to assume anything about you) but do you have kids of your own?