Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2004;328:1074 (1 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7447.1074-b
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITORWe agree with Turai et al in their review of the medical response to radiation incidents that the use of nuclear weapons is currently unlikely,1 but we are concerned that recent developments could lower the nuclear threshold worldwide.
|
|
First hydrogen bomb, Semipalatinsk, 1953 Credit: PAUL LOWE/PANOS
|
Some 20 000 nuclear weapons are active today, many on high alert. Each is several times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb, which if used on a major city in the United Kingdom would overwhelm medical services.2 The United States is planning "bunker busters" or "mini nukes," officially known as "low yield earth penetrating weapons," claiming that their use would cause less "collateral damage" from blast or heat than existing nuclear weapons. However, "venting" would produce major fallout over several square kilometres downwind, causing hundreds of cases of radiation sickness in urban areas.3
Health workers can support an initiative towards reducing the
Douglas Holdstock, honorary secretary
Medact, Grayston Centre, London N1 6HT info@medact.org
Elizabeth Waterston, convenor, nuclear hazards group
Medact, Grayston Centre, London N1 6HT info@medact.org