[ RadSafe ] TFP - next questions

[Syd H. Levine]

Those kids are not getting killed by massive amounts of anything.  The 
nuclear power industry has in fact spent considerable sums on just the kind 
of research that clearly demonstrates it is safe to live near these plants. 
The research supposedly done by the likes of you is such bad science and so 
badly biased as to be a joke.  And of course hormesis would not be expected, 
there is no increased dose to cause it.  Your supposed defense of Sternglass 
is intellectually bankrupt, and you have to throw in insults to the 
professionals on this list to try to make a political point as well.

Syd H. Levine
AnaLog Services, Inc.
Phone:  270-276-5671
Telefax:  270-276-5588
E-mail:  analog at logwell.com
URL:  www.logwell.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Salsman" <james at bovik.org>
To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] TFP - next questions


>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?
>
> 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?
>
> Please?
>
> [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?
>
> Sincerely,
> James Salsman
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood 
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>