Wednesday, March 7, 2018

Vaccinations: Could Nuclear Radiation Exposure Impact Effectiveness?



Crystal clear water, beautiful sandy beaches, and luscious green spaces are all key characteristics of a popular tourist destination. However, the deafening silence of the Marshall Islands proves to be the exception as not even its native inhabitants want to return. A silent moment in history still has catastrophic effects over seventy years later; the United States practically rendered the Marshall Islands uninhabitable after testing its primitive nuclear weapons in 1946 until 1958. If these detonations were evenly spaced apart, they would be equivalent to 1.6 Hiroshima sized explosions every day for those twelve years. Not only were these islands impacted specifically, but the nuclear fallout traveled as far as Tennessee when it was identified among cattle. Within the seventy years since nuclear weapons were tested, both detectable illnesses and environmental implications have been very well documented, yet is there a possibility exposure to nuclear radiation could impact vaccination effectiveness?
The hypothesis is as follows: if exposed to enough nuclear radiation, then vaccination effectiveness will decrease. However, this remains an unprecedented study (from either ethical dilemmas or lack of data collection probably keeping it that way) amongst all other known side effects of nuclear radiation exposure. Immunity is not a guarantee, even with a vaccination, but nevertheless remains a good line of defense against monstrous diseases. While the intensity regarding the threat of nuclear war depends on the person, everyone can agree nuclear fallout is detrimental to anything it so much as grazes, so shouldn’t researchers study the molecular implications and be prepared if nuclear war happens in the future?
I personally believe there is a link between nuclear radiation and the effectiveness of vaccines, however the significance remains unknown as potentials for confounding factors and other explanations could amount for some of the difference. However, there still is and identifiable difference in vaccination effectiveness amongst certain populations. Specifically, we will first look further into the population of Marshallese residing in Arkansas in comparison with other non-Marshallese residents in Arkansas for the occurrence of Mumps. Undeniably, there have been recent endemics of Mumps amongst both those vaccinated and non-vaccinated, and still there has been a higher infection rate in the Marshallese population for both categories. According to Dr. Nate Smith, director of the Department of Health in Arkansas, the early on outbreak was essentially confined to the Marshallese, and the current outbreak reports 60% of its cases from the Marshallese population. The Marshallese, as an entirety, is a vaccinated population. While other populations are still experiencing Mumps even after vaccination, why are the Marshallese experiencing the outbreak so much worse? Questions concerning the validity of the Mumps vaccination are definitely something to be wary of, however, does the exposure to nuclear radiation deteriorate the effectiveness quicker? Or perhaps does it challenge the immune system in unprecedented ways?
Leukemia, breast cancer, multiple myeloma, and stomach cancer are a few of many reported illnesses derived from nuclear exposure. Without a doubt, this exposure causes mayhem within the body, and if it can alter the very essence that makes a human, couldn’t it also alter the cells responsible for our immunological responses? Leukocytes contain nuclei; therefore, they also contain DNA—the very substance that is responsible for the aforementioned illnesses. Could it be reasonable to conclude that nuclear radiation could alter the DNA within B-Lymphocytes and other leukocytes responsible for immunological memory? If B-Lymphocytes and other antibodies are not functioning as they should be and cannot produce the proper memory required for vaccinations to work, we would become more susceptible for illnesses we once thought to be protected against. I believe more tests should be done within the immune system and the cells of the immune system of a person exposed to nuclear radiation in comparison to a person without exposure and record the differences in immunological responses (if any occur).
Besides the Marshallese and Mumps, Japan has also experienced a difference in vaccination effectiveness. Needless to say, Japan has also experienced nuclear radiation much like that of the Marshallese, but with less intensity. Again, recently there have been outbreaks of Mumps in Japan, but the MMR vaccination was not always a required round, and the data provided does not specify the two different populations of vaccinated versus non-vaccinated. However more interestingly, Rotavirus, a required vaccination in Japan, does have a staggering difference in effectiveness in comparison to the United States—in what I will consider to be a country without extensive exposure to nuclear radiation. While concluded to be an effective vaccination, its success rate was only 69.5% against RVGE while the United States concluded to be between 80-90% effective. Again, is this disparity due to nuclear radiation exposure?
While these are only two specific examples, studies must be done to further analyze the detrimental effects of nuclear radiation outside of the visible illnesses. If concluded there is no effect on vaccination effectiveness, then there is something else causing disparities in immunological responses amongst certain populations, and either way it will benefit global health. New vaccinations seem to be the current topic, but how can we continue providing new vaccinations if our older ones are fading in effectiveness or certain environmental conditions are impacting the development of antibodies once exposed to the vaccination?

References:

3 comments:

  1. Uhmmmm, fascinating. This is an aspect to vaccination that I have never thought of before. It's a little weird to include the example of Japan, I think. I don't know much about radiation, but how would you measure the lingering effect of radiation from incidents from 1945 and 2011 onto humans? How's the effect different in different places and population? Of course, I know you only posed a hypothesis of a causality but I would love to know more.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is very fascinating, but I do think that it needs to be researched further in order for there to be a stronger link established. Japan also has a much higher population density, so that could be why a highly communicable disease like mumps is spreading.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The issues you bring up here are extremely interesting, especially with how they can be traced along with a specific community in some cases. However, this leaves me pretty uneasy because of all of the leading questions and lack of cited answers for them. You definitely make a case for more testing, but your post really raises more questions than it answers. Have there been any studies on radiation exposure in other populations, such as people who lived near nuclear accident sites? You raised the case of Japan, but did not address other potential issues involved. While it is commonly associated with radiation exposure, your argument would be much stronger by at least mentioning potentially confounding variables you want to control for such as disease exposure as it relates to population density and potentially diet.

    ReplyDelete