

If You Are Hit By Two Atomic Bombs, Should You Have Kids? - tokenadult
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/07/17/156915881/if-you-are-hit-by-two-atomic-bombs-should-you-have-kids

======
tokenadult
The main story point here, of course, is that the human body has capacity to
self-repair from exposure to ionizing radiation, which is to be expected given
the evolutionary development of sexually reproducing multicellular organisms.

I found it interesting that this article stands as a counterexample to the
"law" often referred to on Hacker News that one should assume the answer to a
headline that asks a yes/no question is no.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_Law_of_Headlines>

Another unit of National Public Radio (the larger organization responsible for
this story) has even provided advice on the subject of how to ask questions in
headlines:

[http://stateimpact.npr.org/teamblog/tag/questions-in-
headlin...](http://stateimpact.npr.org/teamblog/tag/questions-in-headlines/)

Other headline tips (not specific to the issue of headlines that ask yes/no
questions) can be found on the site of the The Poynter Institute.

[http://www.poynter.org/how-tos/newsgathering-
storytelling/14...](http://www.poynter.org/how-tos/newsgathering-
storytelling/140675/10-questions-to-help-you-write-better-headlines/)

~~~
pygy_
_> The main story point here, of course, is that the human body has capacity
to self-repair from exposure to ionizing radiation, which is to be expected
given the evolutionary development of sexually reproducing multicellular
organisms. _

Actually, germ cells are the most sensitive to DNA damage, and commit seppuku
if they can't repair it. Other cell lines are more resilient.

A complete answer to the question in the title would be "Yes, if you still
can".

------
ChuckMcM
Interesting story. Many people don't think about the fact that the world is a
naturally a radioactive place, between radon, cosmic rays, and just uranium
and what not. We've evolved great defensive mechanisms in our DNA.

That said, I worry about too much the 'playing down' of nuclear warfare. One
of my fears these events move out of living memory into history is that people
don't 'get' just how horrific the destruction is. Of course that isn't going
to stop the crazies. I don't doubt for a minute that we'll refresh our 'living
memory' of just what its like to have a nuclear bomb go off in a city of
millions, too many people have access and probability tells us one of them is
too stupid _not_ to try it.

~~~
brc
Indeed - one of the biggest learning moments for me in life is learning how
much natural radiation exists. Housebricks and other items are radioactive.

A lifetime of anti-nuclear propaganda had made me fear anything that was
radioactive. This ranges from the harmless (radiation plot points in movies)
to the outright idiotic (Fukushima spawned plenty of this). There needs to be
public education about what levels of radiation are safe, otherwise we're all
as irrational as someone with arachnaphobia when a tiny spider walks into a
room.

Yet in truth there are safe dosages of radiation, and all the man-made
radiation in the world has actually been a strong net positive.

~~~
stephengillie
<http://xkcd.com/radiation/>

------
cafard
There was an essay by P.J. Plauger, I suppose collected into one of his
"Programming on Purpose" volumes, talking about somebody he had worked with
who was told to show off computers (then very new) to some biologists. He
wrote a simple program that new how to generate itself to output (punched
tape), and ran off copies. When the biologists arrived, he explained the
program, and invited them to try creating mutations by punching extra holes.
The usual result was a program that failed to run--call it sterility. Very
rarely would a "mutation" occur and the program run to generate different
output. I don't recall whether anyone managed to punch a no-op.

------
rcthompson
Cells have the ability to sense DNA damage. They produce proteins that
specifically recognize and bind to various signs of DNA damage, such as
single-stranded DNA (normal DNA is double-stranded), DNA ends (which are
normally protected inside telomeres), fused base pairs, etc. One possible
response is to repair the damage, and this is done quite often. In fact, there
is are _several_ checkpoints during every cell division cycle where the cell
will pause the cycle and wait for everything to report in as damage-free
before continuing. It's actually a bit distressing to realize that pretty much
every one of your cells is constantly fixing its genome in real time, and a
bit mind-blowing how successful the process is (i.e. the fact that you don't
get cancer several times a day).

However, another option in the case that the cell detects irreparable damage
is for the cell to self-destruct. If the cell detects excessive DNA damage, it
will initiate apoptosis. Also, if the DNA damage is taking too long to repair,
the same will happen (kind of like Android's "force close" feature for hung
apps). My assumption would be that most of the germline cells that are damaged
by the radiation from a nuclear bomb would either fix it or kill themselves,
leaving mostly perfectly healthy cells to produce healthy sperm & eggs.

In short, if 10% of your germline cells are damaged by radiation, you will not
be producing anywhere near 10% mutated sperm (or eggs).

------
verroq
Sperm in testicles get purged naturally and/or through masturbation. Any
damaged sperm would have been cycled through and removed a long time ago.
However eggs are do not get recycled, so if his wife was hit by two atomic
bombs, the results probably isn't going to be as rosy.

~~~
Peaker
What about the (stem?) cells that generate the sperm? What if they are
damaged?

~~~
verroq
He would probably be sterile then.

------
Zenst
You can certainly try as that is one heck of a chatup line.

------
michaelcampbell
If you live through it, hell yes. Keep the longevity/survival genes in the
pool.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Or maybe we'll just be breeding a lot of anti-Teela Browns.

------
bobbypage
This story was also covered in WNYC's Radio Lab podcast, which I highly
recommend. [http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-
blog/2012/jul/16/doub...](http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-
blog/2012/jul/16/double-blasted/)

------
Tichy
Could be a shot at creating a new superhero.

Also, big "anecdotal evidence" warning flag. One guy had relatively healthy
kids, so radiation must be harmless?

~~~
sureshv
Read the section subtitled 'What Happened To The Kids?' - It covers this.

No large scale studies, says Sam, "have ever found significant evidence that
these children had higher rates of any disease, or even higher rates of
mutations. ... In the vast majority of cases, genetic fallout didn't settle
onto the succeeding generation."

------
Samuel_Michon
To me, this once again proves Betteridge's Law of Headlines.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_Law_of_Headlines>

Just ask some Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing survivors, or survivors of the
Chernobyl disaster.

~~~
ars
You are getting downmodded for not bothering to actually read the article.

~~~
Samuel_Michon
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>

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-
chernoby...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/24/us-defect-chernobyl-
idUSTRE62N4L820100324)

~~~
ars
Wow, 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
The 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
If 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
I 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/> )

~~~
greedo
Just out of curiosity (and not wanting to assume anything about you) but do
you have kids of your own?

~~~
Samuel_Michon
As I'm sure you've gathered, I do not.

I do intend to raise children. I suspect I'll feel differently about those
then, and probably even about other people's children.

I've seen it happen to several of my friends who have become fathers, I have
no illusion that it will be different for me.

