[ RadSafe ] Tooth Fairy Project responses (long)

[Richard L. Hess]

At 05:44 PM 1/8/2006, JGinniver at aol.com wrote:
>
>In a message dated 08/01/2006 10:08:12 GMT Standard Time, james at bovik.org
>writes:
>
>Here are  replies to everyone -- regarding my excerpts from the method in
>http://mtafund.org/prodlib/radiation_health/final_report.pdf
>-- in  chronological order:
>

I finally took a minute to look at this and find some interesting data:

Let's look at the whole cancer table for those under 20 for a moment:

Table 7
Cancer Incidence, Children Age Under 20
Largest New York Counties, 1997-2001
Annual
County Cases Rate/100,000
1. NASSAU 354 20.3
2. New York 296 19.8
3. Niagara 58 19.3
4. SUFFOLK 366 18.6
5. Orange 98 18.6
6. Westchester 210 17.2
7. Queens 478 17.1
8. Monroe 176 16.9
9. Richmond 98 16.2
10. Rockland 69 16.1
--- United States --- 16.1
11. Erie 198 15.6
12. Kings 557 15.3
13. Albany 58 15.1
14. Dutchess 56 14.6
15. Bronx 295 13.8
16. Onandaga 80 12.1

If the claims are true that BNL is the source ot these excess cancer 
deaths, why does Nassau County which lies to the west and upwind of 
BNL have higher cancer deaths than Suffolk? Why is New York County 
(Manhattan) higher than Suffolk and almost as high as Nassau? 
Conversely why are The Bronx and Kings (Brooklyn) lower than the 
national average? Too much chance for confounding factors as I see it 
here. I grew up in Queens and don't recall any reactors there, but 
why are its cancer deaths higher than Kings or the Bronx? Could this 
have anything to do with Kennedy and LaGuardia airports?

I'm sure there is something there, but I'm not sure it's BNL.

The following table
Table 7
Average Strontium-90 Concentration in Baby Teeth
By Geographic Area, Persons Born After 1979
Area No. Teeth Avg. Sr90/Ca
(Suffolk County) 503 1.28
(Nassau County) 101 1.24
Long Island 604 1.27
Other Areas 597 1.45
TOTAL 1201 1.36

has introductory material that indicates that there is no control. 
But the areas around BNL are lower than the national average.

We see later in the report measurements of pico- and nano-curies of 
other materials. This falls into a common failing of many of these 
studies, "just because we can measure it, it is bad."

What is the annual exposure from these amounts? How does this 
exposure compare to normal background radiation?

I would love to see reports that put these numbers in perspective 
rather than say, "wow, I can measure something."

One of my favourite thoughts these days is that I can measure the 
amount of moonlight falling on my backyard. Do I need to worry about moonburn?

Cheers,

Richard


Richard L. Hess                   richard at richardhess.com
Aurora, Ontario, Canada       http://www.richardhess.com/
Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm