Dying Young – Falling Life Expectancy in the US

The Most Revolutionary Act

October 01, 2019

Dying Young—Falling Life Expectancy in the U.S.

By the Children’s Health Defense Team

Note: A previous article focused on infant mortality; this article considers child and adolescent mortality and their contribution to falling life expectancy in the U.S.

Life expectancy in the U.S. has fallen for several years in a row, representing the “longest sustained decline in expected lifespan since the tumultuous period of 1915 to 1918.” Comparing unfavorably to their counterparts in other high-income nations, Americans lead lives that are both shorter and less healthy, with a health disadvantage that “begins at birth and extends across the life course.”Increased death rates in teens and younger adults are key drivers of the recent downward trend in U.S. life expectancy. Stated another way, Americans are not just “dying at a faster rate”—they are dying younger. As a Harvard researcher has stated, “We’re seeing…

View original post 1,295 more words

One thought on “Dying Young – Falling Life Expectancy in the US”

  1. https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/03/20/cancer-george-monbiot-and-nuclear-weapons-test-fallout/

    Busby talked about stem cell and genetic damage in the 58-63 birth cohort from nuclear bomb testing
    Simce then they have built hundreds of radionuclide leaking nuclear reactors. There are millions of tons of nuclear waste. Several more nuclear meltdown. Busby thinks the 58-64 cohort has a decreased life expectancy. 65 years old. The same could be said for generations after that.

    “The effect of the genetic damage of the fallout on babies can be seen in the graph below, Fig 1, taken from a recent paper I published (Busby C (2017) Radiochemical Genotoxicity Risk and Absorbed Dose. Res Rep Toxi. Vol.1 No.1:1.). The babies that did not die were just those with insufficient genetic damage to kill, but this damage would have affected them in later life in various ways. The most measurable effect (apart from genetic defects and congenital diseases) is higher cancer risk which is presented as early cancer onset. The issue of the 1959-63 cancer cohort was discussed in my 1995 book Wings of Death, and a letter I published in 1994 in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). The issue is one of Absorbed Dose. If internal exposure to radionuclides like Strontium-90 and Uranium-238 and Uranium-235 bind to DNA, which is the target for genetic damage, then Dose, which is an average quantity over kilograms of tissue, is an unsafe way of quantifying genetic damage. The issue of genetic damage from radioactive pollution was first raised in 1950 by Herman Muller, the Nobel Prize winning geneticist who discovered the effects of radiation, but his warnings were ignored, though they are now found to be accurate.”

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.