Re: Health effects near nuclear power plants

[Vincent.King@DOEGJPO.COM (Vincent King)]

     Radsafers:
     
     With all due respect to Norm (whose questions I appreciate, by the 
     way, even if I disagree with his conclusions), the posting below is 
     exactly right.  It is absurdly easy to show that nuclear power 
     plants cannot cause the claimed health effects.
     
     If there is enough Cs-137 to show up in baby teeth, or enough 
     radiation dose to the surrounding population to affect infant 
     mortality, there is CERTAINLY would be enough radiation or released 
     radionuclides that it would be easily distinguishable from 
     background.  You can't get the effects that are claimed to occur at 
     a distance without (1) direct radiation, which shows up easily on, 
     say, a TLD, or (2) released radionuclides, which are equally easy 
     to detect in air or water samples.  There is no mystical suspension 
     of the laws of meteorology or physics that allows measurable 
     effects offsite without seeing the harmful agent somewhere on the 
     way.
     
     Even if you choose to ignore the results of the comprehensive 
     environmental monitoring all NPPs are required to perform (which 
     are quite sensitive, as everyone who conducts them knows), or the 
     results of effluent monitoring (which are the locations where any 
     released radionuclides are most concentrated), why don't the 
     critics ever produce monitoring results of their own to prove their 
     point?  There is absolutely no restriction on someone conducting 
     their own environmental sampling program, rather than relying on 
     the supposed effect somewhere 'out there', to prove their 
     contention. But I think we all know why that doesn't occur.
     
     (And sorry, I don't buy the Cs-137 in baby teeth 'proof' until you 
     tell me how you adjust for the residual Cs-137 from atmospheric 
     testing, demonstrate a statistically valid increase associated with 
     a particular site, and give a plausible reason why the Cs-137 
     doesn't show up at the effluent release point.)
     
     Vincent King
     vincent.king@doegjpo.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Health effects near nuclear power plants
Author:  Holloway3@aol.com at Internet
Date:    4/25/00 6:38 PM


The fatal weakness of the various claims of health effects near nuclear power 
plants is that the emissions from the plants are so low that they are 
insignificant compared to the radiation always present from natural sources.  
Even the residual fallout from weapons testing of the 1950s and early 1960s 
is more abundant in than emissions from reactors.  The claim of health 
effects from nuclear power plants just won't hold up under scrutiny as most 
of the readers of this list know. Making comparisons with natural background 
radiation is something that should be done more often to combat the poorly 
informed activists. 

To counter the flaws in their logic, the activists often claim that 
"artificial" radiation is somehow different and more harmful than natural 
radiation.  They don't elaborate much on this theory, though.  I think we 
should counter this claim by making the truthful statement that fission 
products are "natural" and "organic" because they were ultimately derived 
from uranium that once was dug up from the earth.  Once Christie Brinkley 
learns that uranium is really a natural element, I am sure she will accept it 
as being from the earth and therefore good.  
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html