[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Health effects near nuclear power plants
Ruth --
The problem of Sr-90 in milk and teeth is rather more complex, so permit me
to add to your brief discourse. First of all, one can tell whether the
Sr-90 came from weapons test fallout or a nuclear plant by observing the
Sr-90:Sr-89 ratio. In fallout, the Sr-89 has virtually all decayed away.
Next, cows can do strange things -- during the winter, many are fed on
hay/silage and may develop Ca deficiencies which may be treated by Ca
injections; these affect the excretion of Sr-90. Other metabolic processes
may directly affect the excretion of Ca/Sr, and result in unexpected and
sometimes inexplicably high concentrations of Sr/Ca in milk. It is
therefore important to look at the amount of Ca in the milk when elevated Sr
levels are seen. Finally, Moses Lake is much closer to the Hanford site
than 100 miles.
There are other problems with using Sr-90 in teeth as a surrogate for Sr-90
intake. Teeth do not all grow at the same rate, nor at a constant rate, and
the turnover is very slow. Studies at the USTUR with adults and actinides
showed no correlation between body burden and concentration or total
activity in teeth. I believe the same is true of radium.
Ron Kathren
----- Original Message -----
From: ruth_weiner <ruth_weiner@email.msn.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: Health effects near nuclear power plants
> Strontium is a congener of (in the same group as) calcium, and is
> incorporated into any tissue that incorporates calcium. Sr-90 behaves
> chemically virtually exactly like non-radioactive strontium. Hence the
> notion that baby teeth will give an indication of Sr-90 in the children's
> food chain. However, Sr-90 is Sr-90, and the only way to tell if it comes
> from atmospheric fallout (from atmospheric testing) or from a nuclear
power
> plant is to compare the amount or concentration of environmental Sr-90
> downwind from a known emitter with the amount or concentration of Sr-90
from
> an area that is not downwind and at the right distance from a known
emitter.
> I question whether collecting teeth provides any useful information,
because
> the Sr-90 would be from dietary sources like milk or some vegetables that
> incorporate calcium (and therefore strontium). So the Sr-90 in child's
baby
> teeth would come from the milk the child drank, which comes from a dairy,
> which gets it from dairy farms whose cows get it from fallout on grass
they
> graze on or other food they eat. Since dairies blend milk from different
> farms, and cows are fed from more than a single source, it must be nearly
> impossible to connect a particular tooth with the grass or other feed that
> received Sr-90 fallout. The Hanford dose reconstruction study, if I am
not
> mistaken, found that the largest radioiodine doses were from milk sold in
> Moses Lake, Washington, which is more than a hundred miles generally
upwind
> from Hanford (please correct me if I am wrong about this -- I am going
from
> memory). The connection was made by carefully tracing where the dairies
got
> their milk from during the 1950s and 1960s.
>
> Sr-90 has a 30-year half life.
>
> Ruth Weiner
> ruth_weiner@msn.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Norman & Karen Cohen <norco@bellatlantic.net>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 6:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Health effects near nuclear power plants
>
>
> >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
>
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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