[ RadSafe ] TFP - next questions

James Salsman james at bovik.org
Thu Jan 5 13:52:45 CST 2006

I guess I get to be the lone defender of Sternglass on RADSAFE.
Just what I've always wanted!

> Two potential error factors that do  not appear to be
> addressed in 
> http://mtafund.org/prodlib/radiation_health/final_report.pdf
> are  chemoluminescence and K-40 LSA correction, either of 
> which can easily produce a 'false positive' for Sr-90/Y-90
> presence.

Why would this confound the blinding of the teeth source?  

Is there any reason that chemoluminescent contamination is 
expected to be more prevalent in areas near reactors?

If the increased radiation is due to K-40, what difference 
does that make if the higher scintillation activity is 
strongly correlated with geographical regions where the 
cancer death rate is 13% above the national mean (24% above 
for breast cancer; 16% for childhood cancer) but all other 
causes of death are only 0.1% about the national mean.  
Where is the hormesis effect that should be occurring?

> Another problem is the absence of comparative sample media
> to help understand and  correlate the study results. If we
> assume that  Sr-90 in teeth ought to correspond with Sr-90
> in bone from the same  individual, too, then bone sampling
> and analysis should be part of this  particular study. 

Certainly the nuclear energy industry associations will 
immediately front the money to pay for independent study 
of bone-teeth correlations to clear their good name at 
their earliest possible convenience, right?


Any takers?

You -- at your desk with the funny trefoil stickers on your
monitor -- can you spare fifty grand for some bone studies 
of cows in the Tooth Fairy Project's hot areas?


[crickets chirping]

> Finally, the claim by the Report that the data shows more
> Sr-90 in teeth near nuclear power plants than elsewhere
> seems to be a weak correlation at best....

Is there any actual mathematical argument against the reports
claim of p < 0.002 (p. 24), or is this just a thinly veiled 
argument from emotion?

> simply precipiting carbonates is not specific enough for
> Sr-90 analysis.  A whole range of natural (and artificial)
> radionuclides would carry through the procedure. 

So where's that mass spectroscopy money from the nuclear 
energy industry associations?

[more crickets]

And, so what?  If the kids are getting killed by massive 
amount of K-40 or something instead of Sr-90, is there any 
evidence that whatever isotope(s) are the culprit aren't 
coming from the reactors near which the activity levels are 
found to be much greater?

James Salsman

More information about the RadSafe mailing list