[ RadSafe ] TFP - next questions

AnaLog Services, Inc. AnaLog at logwell.com
Fri Jan 6 02:00:10 CST 2006 

Indeed, in the well logging business, the radiation we rely on to identify 
strata is from K-U-T, with the K being radioactive potassium of course.  In 
addition to the gross counts giving clues to the basic stratigraphy (gross 
count gamma ray logging), the proportion of the K-U-T components can tell us 
about specific formations (spectral gamma ray logging).  It is thought that 
most of the natural thermal gradient is attributable to those primordial 
radionuclides, and it is mighty dern hot down there!

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: "Muckerheide, James" <jimm at WPI.EDU>
To: <StevenFrey at aol.com>; <james at bovik.org>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 2:04 AM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] TFP - next questions


Hi Steve,  A good response, but note that K40 is not cosmogenic.  It is a
primordial radionuclide, half-life 1.3 billion years, and makes up 0.000117
of natural potassium, which is essential for biology to function, and is a
significant source of direct radiation from the ground, especially in those
areas that have low natural uranium and thorium concentrations.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide


> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf Of StevenFrey at aol.com
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 7:46 PM
> To: james at bovik.org; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] TFP - next questions
>
>
> Hi James, pretty entertaining comments. Couple thoughts:
>
> - you suggest that the nuclear power industry should bear the cost for
> sampling bone to help understand the tooth results. I would counter
> suggest that
> it is the responsibility of the study producers to do that, since it is
> they
> who  are making the suggestion (read: veiled claim) claim that there  is
> causation.
>
> - chemoluminescence is not contamination. It is a source of counting error
> in liquid scintillation samples in which fluorescence photons produced
> from the
>  interaction of the sample material with the cocktail will produce 
> counts.
> And lots of them, even in ordinary cases. Radioactivity does not  have to
> be
> present in the sample to produce it. That is why care in sample
> preparation is
> vital.  Having a liquid scintillation counter that can  automatically
> detect
> and discount chemoluminescence counts would help, too. The  Report makes
> no
> mention of whether chemoluminescence was anticipated or  discounted.
>
> - Why did the study producers apparently not split their tooth samples and
> send them to multiple labs? Relying on only one lab, and that one being
> selected by the study producer, eliminates objectivity from the  claimed
> results.
>
> - Your quoting of cancer statistics below is missing any objective
> causative
> mechanism that nuclear power caused it. There could be other  sources of
> error that were not identified in the Report as having been  considered.
> For
> example, chemical exposure, air pollution,  lifestyle, gerrymandering of
> the
> statistics themselves, and so on.  Besides, there are other, much better
> controlled
> data, that indicates  that at low doses, there is no increase in cancer
> rates
> among the  studied individuals. The DOE Nuclear Shipyard Worker Study is
> one
> such data set,  and it involved a pretty convincing study population of
> many
> tens of  thousands of individuals. Plus, there does not seem to be an
> increase
> in cancer  among nuclear medicine or radiology practitioners. So you see,
> my
> statistics can beat up your statistics.
>
> - statistics again: a claim of p < 0.002 by the study producers means
> nothing without any explanation provided as to how it was calculated.
> Again,
> selective gerrymandering of the tooth statistics can easily produce an
> even  lower p
> than that! The quality of the p depends in part on how small  one cuts the
> sample, that is, number of individuals against whom a  single incidence of
> tooth
> Sr-90 (real or fancied) is detected, and then  including only those
> kernels
> in the final statistical summary. The Report offers  no explanation on how
> its
> p was calculated.
>
> - K-40 is a naturally-occurring radionuclide, produced by cosmic ray
> interactions with the atmosphere. Nuclear power doesn't produce it, and
> the  medical
> profession doesn't use it, either. You would have to erect a 1000-foot
> thick
> concrete astrodome over America to effectively stop its production. But
> would
> you want to do that? There's no scientific evidence that K-40 in natural
> concentrations causes cancer, and you can bet that graffiti artists would
> be
> busting to get at all that clean 'canvas' up there.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts...Ernie's, too. :-)
>
> Steve
>
>
> In a message dated 1/5/2006 6:50:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> james at bovik.org writes:
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
_______________________________________________
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/

More information about the RadSafe mailing list