Comments on Rancho Seco Infant Study.

["D. Kosloff" <dkosloff@ncweb.com>]

I am not an epidemiologist or an expert in any specific field.  However I
have about 20 years of nuclear experience.  I am not neutral.  My comments
are based on personal observations of actual conditions and publicly
available knowledge.  Those who wish to know more of my "qualifications" can
look at my previous post.

The published study on infant deaths "near" Rancho Seco (dry ranch) and
other shut down nuclear power plants includes the following statements:
Rancho Seco is "25 miles southwest of Sacramento" and "Although the
Sacramento metropolitan area lies to the northwest, and technically not
downwind of the reactor, it is included in the study because of its extreme
proximity (10 - 15 miles)."  For about a week I traveled from Rancho Cordova
to Rancho Seco.  For those of you who do not know exactly where Rancho Seco
is, you may find the location on a road map by finding the town of Clay
(don't blink) and state highway 104.  The plant is about 1 mile east of Clay
on 104.  I stayed in Rancho Cordova when I was working at the plant because
there was nowhere else to stay any closer, it was about a 16 mile drive.
Very little of the "Sacramento
metropolitan area" is within 10 to 15 miles of the plant.  At that time
(1987) most of the population development in the Sacramento metropolitan
area was
to the east and north of Rancho Cordova.  The northern boundary of  San
Joaquin County, not included in the study, is about six miles south of the
plant.   The Lacrosse reactor is located on the Mississippi River several
miles south of the city of Lacrosse.  However the county just across the
river from the plant was not included in the study.

The study also stated that:  "Estimates of dietary intake of Strontium-90 in
urban west (mostly San Francisco) adults were made from 1961 to 1982."  "It
is possible that Sr-90 levels in San Francisco were affected by emissions
from Rancho Seco; the reactor lies just 70 miles from the city, while a
substantial portion of San Francisco food is grown in the nearest
agricultural area, the Sacramento Valley."   There was not discussion of how
representative these values were for the general population of the "urban
west".

The narrative then transitions form highly speculative to absolute with the
next sentence and with little proof: "Rancho Seco closing reduced local
levels of dietary radioactivity."

When I drove from Rancho Seco to the plant I noticed little agricultural
activity, mostly grazing.  I did not notice any dairy activity.  I do not
know where the major dairy farming occurs in California.  One of the major
dairy companies at the time was Berkeley Farms ("Farms in Berkeley?!").  It
does not
rain in that part of California from about May until about September.  I
don't know what the plant did with liquid effluent, there was no place to
discharge.  It would seem that it would be difficult to get the radioactive
materials from the  plant to the people.  I saw little irrigation in the
area.  Most agriculture in California requires irrigation.  The Sacramento
Valley extends about 150 miles north of Sacramento.  Most agriculture is
north and east of Sacramento.  There is additional major agricultural
activity south of San Francisco along the coast.  Also south of the plant
for about 100 miles in the San Joaquin Valley.  I find it hard to believe
that the San Francisco area gets much food from near the plant.  Of course
San Francisco, like most cities, uses mostly processed food.  Fresh produce
comes mostly from the coastal areas and from southern California and
Arizona.  Apples from Oregon and near Santa Rosa.  Brussels sprouts from the
coast south of San Francisco.  Pears from Lake County and Oregon.  Rice from
north and west of Sacramento.  There may be some truck farms to the west of
the plant but very little agriculture to the east.  Some nuts (on trees)
northeast of Sacramento.

The study also states that "data from 1988 to 1989 (the latest reported
releases)" was used.  If you go to the NRC site you will see that Rancho
Seco is still reporting releases.

What the report does not mention is that the Mare Island Naval Shipyard and
the Alameda Naval Air Station were not shut down until after Rancho Seco.
Mare Island overhauled nuclear submarines and nuclear powered aircraft
carriers regularly visited Alameda.  Also, the geothermal power plants
(which release radon) near Calistoga were not mentioned.  Natural geothermal
activity in that area also releases radon.  For example "Old Faithful" in
Calistoga.  Rosalie Bertell also mentions, in "No Immediate Danger," that
use of natural gas has a significant effect in increasing background
radiation.  This would seem to have an even stronger effect on pregnant
women and small children who would probably spend more time indoors.  How do
hospitals minimize radiation exposure from using natural gas?   Also many
people travel from Sacramento east to the mountains for skiing and gambling,
receiving higher radiation exposures due to altitude and granite.

Also in the 2-98 issue of Epidemiology <http://www.epidem.com> there is an
article, "Trihalomethanes in Drinking Water and Spontaneous Abortion,"
(search for "chlorine")  that describes a study of the effects of drinking
chlorinated water in California.  It identified that consumption of >5
glasses of cold water per day was associated with increased spontaneous
abortion.  That study includes the following statement:  "We also examined
several demographic, socioeconomic, life-style, and reproductive history
variables using contingency tables and multiple logistic regression models."
Six independent risk factors were identified.  Only one (smoking) was
mentioned for the Rancho Seco study.

Don Kosloff dkosloff@ncweb.com
2910 Main St, Perry OH 44081

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html