Re: Health effects near nuclear power plants

[Norman & Karen Cohen <norco@bellatlantic.net>]

Hi Vincent,
It was Sr-90, not Ce-137. But that probably doesn't affect the rest of your
arguments.
Sr90 is emitted by nuke plants and the emissions show up on yearly reports issued by
each nuke plant and available at the NRC. I have the whole pile of them for salem 1
and 2.
The questions are - does a relatively small amouint of sr-90 as reported by the NRC
able to produce the effects shown in the Tooth Fairy studies, and is all of the
sr-90 emissions being caught or reported?

Norm


Vincent King wrote:

>      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

--
Coalition for Peace and Justice and the UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave.,
Linwood, NJ 08221; 609-601-8537 or 609-601-8583 (8583: fax, answer machine);
norco@bellatlantic.net;  UNPLUG SALEM WEBSITE:  http://www.unplugsalem.org/
COALITION FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE WEBSITE:  http://members.bellatlantic.net/~norco/
ICQ# 54268619; The Coalition for Peace and Justice is a chapter of Peace Action.
“We have two lives, the one we’re given, and the other one we make” (Mary Chapin
Carpenter)
“Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights...Get up, stand up, don’t give up the
fight!” (Bob Marley)




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