I find this super interesting. Around the time Chernobyl happened I remember that damages for the subsequent generations were widely sold as a fact by the media.
At university I had to do a course in radiation protection and that was the first time when I heard this idea challenged. Especially that we needed to distinguish between teratogenic damage to the unborn during exposure and potential genetic damage passed on to children conceived after exposure. The former was an established fact the later a possibility no one had found proof of.
The article seems not only to corroborate this, but also my impression that these two things are regularly confused.
"Inasmuch as even today the issues are occasionally confused, a clear distinction must be drawn between these studies and studies on the children in utero at the time of the bombings."
At university I had to do a course in radiation protection and that was the first time when I heard this idea challenged. Especially that we needed to distinguish between teratogenic damage to the unborn during exposure and potential genetic damage passed on to children conceived after exposure. The former was an established fact the later a possibility no one had found proof of.
The article seems not only to corroborate this, but also my impression that these two things are regularly confused.
"Inasmuch as even today the issues are occasionally confused, a clear distinction must be drawn between these studies and studies on the children in utero at the time of the bombings."