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:
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.
ReplyDeleteThis 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.
ReplyDeleteThe 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