[ RadSafe ] Radioactive contamination of the ocean

Wed Mar 30 21:15:03 CDT 2011

Nicely done Stewart.

Sincerely,

Neill Stanford, CHP
Stanford Dosimetry, LLC
360 733 7367
360 933 1794 (fax)
www.stanforddosimetry.com
stanford at stanforddosimetry.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Stewart Farber [mailto:radproject at sbcglobal.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 4:01 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Cc: stewart farber; stewart Farber Medical, LLC
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radioactive contamination of the ocean

Hello all,

The claim from Chris Busby copied below which states as a matter of fact
that 
leukemia rates are supposedly elevated in coastal communities near Millstone

Nuclear Power Plant in Connecticut is only supported by the imaginings of 
various data manipulators and discredited "studies" by 2nd generation Ernest

Sternglass imitators. Sternglass himself even caricatured himself when he
went 
so far as to claim nuclear fallout radiation was responsible for a global
AIDS 
outbreak due to virus mutations induced in African non-human primates which 
passed over to humans. This gives a whole new meaning to the movie title
"Out of 
Africa".

Ernest Sternglass was completely discredited by the US National Academy of 
Sciences, the US National Cancer Institute [ NCI ] and  other health
entities, 
national labs,  and radiation protection entities both in the US and abroad 
which have examined these kinds of claims.  Such claims are critiized as
having 
only selected data that supported their hypothesis of excess leukemia or
cancers 
in children and ignoring data which did not support their hypothesis.

Recent claims of excess cancer near nuclear facilities have employ the same 
types of biased, non-scientific study methodology such  that in the end the 
claims made, based on selected data, are not supported by all relevant
actual 
data. To call the claims of Sternglass and his imitators "junk science"
maligns 
both junk and science.

To see a summary of a major study  ["NO EXCESS MORTALITY RISK FOUND"] by the

National Cancer Institute evaluating cancer rates around every nuclear power

plant in the US and finding no increase in cancer rates, go to:

<http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/nuclear-facilities>

The claims of elevated cancer  from discharges to Long Island Sound in the
case 
of Millstone Station, due to resuspension of particulates from a sea-to-air 
pathway originating from the plant liquid releases have been disproven by 
impartial evaluations by the CT State Department of Public Health, and
Federal 
Public Health agencies. 

The pathway:  Facility liquid discharges ==> Iintertidal deposition ==> 
Resuspension of activity==>Airborne particulates==> To human inhalation ==> 
Malignant Health Effects represents an absolutely trivial pathway of rad 
exposure per unit discharge vs. other potential pathways of human exposure
from 
any given plant.

Of note in the current media frenzy about sight Plutonium contamination seen
at 
a few spots onsite at Fukushima and potential discharges to the ocean
nearby, 
open air testing of nuclear bombs deposited about 6,000 kg of Pu-239 into
the 
earth's environment. One part in 1E+17 of this deposition  has found its way

into human beings. This inhaled Pu equals about 6.0E-11 grams. 

Anti-nuclear activists and countless recent media reports have repeatedly
stated 
that "one speck" of Pu can cause a lung cancer as if specks of Pu were being

dispersed. Various activists like Ralph Nader have claimed that 1 kg of Pu 
released to the environment could cause 2 to 18 billion lung cancer deaths.
The 
6,000 kg of Pu-239 released by all open air testing of nuclear bombs and 
dispersed over the entire world as fine particulates [the form most likely
to be 
inhaled into the lung] has had no observable effect on lung cancer rates.
The 
LNT hypothesis predicts about a 0.007% increase in lung cancer from the
release 
of 6,000 kg of Pu to the atmosphere which was blasted into the stratosphere
and 
dispersed over the globe as it settled out to earth by the early 1970s.

A few Bq of Pu per kg of soil [background levels] as recently measured near 
Fukushima is an inconsequential risk no matter what assumptions are made.

 Stewart Farber, MS Public Health

________________________________
From: Busby Chris <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk>
To: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net>; The International Radiation
Protection 
(Health Physics) Mailing List <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>; The International

Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Wed, March 30, 2011 7:47:53 AM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radioactive contamination  of the ocean

But it does not work like that. That is what Dunster said in 1957 about 
Sellafield. But it was wrong. The radionuclides bind to the intertidal
sediment 
and become resuspended and come ashore in the air due to sea-to-land
transfer, a 
phenomenon that is well described and measured. This results in excess
cancer 
risk in coastal communities. For example, the leukemia rates in children are

highest in the coastal communities near the Millstone reactor; plesty of
other 
examoples especially Sellafield. 

Chris Busby 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Jerry Cohen
Sent: Mon 28/03/2011 23:01
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radioactive contamination  of the ocean

In todays news, we  see alarming stories of  radioactive contamination found
in 
ocean waters near Japan. In a previous post, I cited the tendency of people
to 
equate detectability with hazard, and our capability to readily detect 
radioactivity in miniscule concentrations. 
The capacity of the ocean to dilute any contaminant is almost infinite. It
can 
readily be calculated that any amount of radioactivity released to the ocean

will be diluted to innocuous levels in a relatively short time. All of the 
nuclear waste conceivably produced by the most ambitious nuclear power 
production in the world would pose no significant health hazard if dispersed
in 
the world's oceans  compared to the natural radioactivity (U, Ra, K-40, etc)

that nature has already placed in the ocean. Actually, as I have previously 
discussed on radsafe, oceanic disposal is our best bet for disposal of 
all radioactive waste.
Unfortunately, politics and hysteria will always trump  science.

Jerry Cohen
_______________________________________________
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:

http://health.phys.iit.edu

_______________________________________________
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:

http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu