Fukushima 3 years later

The disaster at Japan’s Fukushima Power Plant resulted in a meltdown of three of the plants six nuclear reactors. A giant tsunami which crashed into the coast of Japan where the Fukushima Power Plant was located caused the plant to meltdown. Shortly after the tsunami, the plant began leaking nuclear radiation into the environment, which quickly began spilling into the nearby sea. The Fukushima Power Plant meltdown is the largest nuclear accident recorded since Chernobyl (1986) in Ukraine. Together, these events are considered to be the two worst accidents in nuclear power plant history.

Today, over three years since the tsunami struck, the most serious issue with clean up surrounds the large amounts of water which have been contaminated by radioactive materials that have leaked from the damaged reactors. It is expected to take many decades to be able to completely clean up this toxic radioactive water. Most of the efforts over the last three years have been to contain the contaminated water to keep it from further poisoning the ocean that surrounds Fukushima. Unfortunately, the addition of underground concrete walls surrounding the plant have not drastically reduced the leaks.  At this point, no deaths have been directly recorded in relations to short term radiation exposure from the plant. However, nearly 20,000 lives were lost as a result of the tsunami itself.

After investigation by the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission it was determined that the disaster could have been avoided. The commission discovered that the plant was nowhere near prepared to withstand the earthquake and subsequent tsunami that followed. It was also discovered that the plant did not meet basic safety requirements, which are common around the nuclear power industry. Another study, which compared Japanese power plants along the coastline showed that they are particularly ill, prepared for tsunamis. If the proper safety measures were set in place, the incident at Fukushima could have been drastically lessened or even avoided all together.  

Fluoride healthy or harmful?

            For as long as I can remember my dentist has preached to me about how fluoride is good for my dental health and how it will help protect my teeth form cavities. Until I turned 18, I would have to stand over the sink in the dentist’s office with a mouth guard that had some sort of fluoride containing substance on it that was supposed to help protect my teeth from decay. My last dentist visit before I left for college I can specifically remember my dental hygienist mentioning to me that I should think about getting mouthwash with fluoride in it before I left for school to ensure that my teeth would be getting enough fluoride.

            According to the CDC, the addition of fluoride to public drinking water is one of the top public health achievements of the 20^th century. Fluoridated water can occur either naturally or by the addition of fluoride during water treatment processes. The idea is that when you drink water that has fluoride in it, your tooth enamel is much less likely to demineralize as quickly and this will in turn help prevent the formation of cavities.

            Some believe that the addition of fluoride to public water systems is unnecessary in developed countries because fluoride toothpastes and mouthwashes are readily available to most people. The concern surrounding fluoridation of public water supplies lies in amounts of fluorine that are considered to be above what is naturally occurring in the environment. Consuming water which has concentrations above what the World Health Organization considers to be safe can lead to adverse health effects such as severe dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis and weakened bones. Fluoride poisoning is another negative health effect from the over consumption of fluoride. Instances of this occurred multiple times in the U.S. during the 1990’s.

Jake Leg

            During the prohibition times in the United States, some turned to Jamaica Ginger extract. Jamaica Ginger, better known as “Jake” in the U.S. was a medicine that started to become popular in the late 19^th- century. Those looking to find a way to still enjoy alcohol after the start of prohibition started to drink Jake because it contained nearly 80% ethanol. The ginger itself was not dangerous if consumed but once the U.S. government found out that it could be used as an illicit form of alcohol, they wanted it to be changed. The change made the Jake more bitter testing and therefore more difficult and less pleasurable to drink.

            Bootleggers began to look for a way to make the Jake pass the tests of the government and still be somewhat easy to drink. They settled on tri-o-phosphate, which was originally thought to be non-toxic but was later discovered to be a neurotoxin. People began to notice that users of Jake were starting to be effected by the poisonous substance. Patients began showing signs of lost control of their extremities. This caused many to develop a recognizable limp, which was later dubbed “Jake Leg.”

            It did not take long for the source of the contaminated Jake to be discovered and eliminated. Unfortunately, by that time the damage to the victims had already been done. It was very seldom that any of the victims were able to recover from the condition. Many of the victims were immigrants who received very little medical attention.  It is not known exactly how many people were affected by the contaminated Jake, but it is believed that the number approached about 50 thousand. This incident became fairly well known but I it did not prevent an outbreak of organophosphate poisoning in Germany, Spain, Italy, and Morocco in 1959.

Spring Break Risky Behaviors

            Spring break for college students has become a yearly event viewed as a drunken party that spans a week filled with risky behaviors. The majority of this publicity probably stems from the media and may not be completely true. Having experienced spring break for myself as a college student multiple times, I would have to agree that the media has a huge influence on the image of the typical activities of college students on spring break. As far as I am concerned, I don’t think that I have acted any different while on spring break than I do when I am out with friends in Athens. I am sure the majority of college students would probably agree that they have had similar experiences.

            The difference between spring break and your typical weekend in Athens is that spring break is a weeklong. Rather than college students going out to house parties and bars on Friday and Saturday nights they are able to party all day long for a week straight. While on spring break the responsibilities of being a college student are put on hold for the most part so students tend to only be focused on partying.

            Since college students are only focused on drinking and socializing for this long length of time they probably participate in more risky behaviors than they would in the average week. If this is true it is probably the reason that the media hears about bad things happening while students are on spring break and is also the reason why risky behaviors are exposed to the public. In contrast, if you were to average the amount of “risky behaviors” with the time spent drinking on spring break and on the average weekend in Athens then I think the numbers would end up being very similar.