Re: RADSAFE digest 3135

[Franz Schoenhofer <schoenho@via.at>]

At 11:40 28.04.2000 -0500, you wrote:
>Sandy,
>
>And I wish a Tooth Fairy person would be on this list to give answers,
cause mine
>are second-hand, but baby teeth were pciked because they give us a
'snapshot' of
>sr-90 emissions since most of the sr-90 would enter the child's teeth in
utero.

Dear Norman,

There is something which has always fascinated me. This is the attitude of
persons, who are commonly called the "anti's" to neglect the most basic and
self evident facts, which need not even be connected to radioactivity or
nuclear power. Your comment is a good example: I do not know whether you
have children, but in your family, among your friends you sure have seen
all kind of babies from newborns to moderate size. You should therefore
know, that children are born without visible teeth, of course they have
something like a "source" (sorry, I do not know the correct English word)
from which teeth grow. It is self evident that the calcium of the teeth has
to originate from somewhere - namely from milk. Therefore you hopefully
will concede that the Sr-90 which could be found would originate from the
food (mostly milk) fed to the babies. Don't you agree that your claim
cannot be correct in the light of "everyday experience"?



>And as far as samples, they are collecting teeth from everywhere. What
happens as
>a practical reality is that activists and concerned people living near the
nuke
>plants are more likely to send teeth in due to their concerns about nuke
power.
>
>    To say that there are no health problems associated with nuke plants
is not
>accurate. There are higher levels of breast cancer nearer a plant than
farther
>away. 

Where is the proof? Is the reasoning the same like with the Sr-90 in teeth?
Where are the data? Who has checked them? 

There are indications of higher infant mortality,e tc near nuke plants.

Where is the proof? Where are the data?


>There are cancer clusters. 

I refer to an earlier posting. There  m u s t   be clusters, because of
calculating an average per county or country or vicinity there have to be
geographic differences with values above and below the average. I cited the
situation in England, where similar clusters have been found not only
around Sellafield (where data are still disputed), but also in areas far
away from anything radioactive or nuclear.



 I think the idea that there is a synergistic effect
>between continually doses of low lowel radiation and the rise of soft tissue
>cancers is an idea that needs to be considered.

Many RADSAFErs have already mentioned the high background areas and the
differences of background radiation even within countries not affected by
monazites. I could add the high altitude dwellers in South America. They
have to my knowledge a higher incidence of skin cancer - but this is not
due to cosmic rays, but rather to UV radiation. 


Please do not consider my posts as a way to get you into defense. You need
not defend your points of view. Just consider my arguments. You need not
respond to my arguments.

Best wishes from a very peaceful

Franz


Franz Schoenhofer
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna
Austria
Tel.: +43-1-495 53 08
Fax.: same number
mobile phone: +43-664-338 0 333
e-mail: schoenho@via.at


Office:
Hofrat Dr. Franz Schoenhofer
Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management
Radiation Protection Department (BMLFUW I/8 U)
Radetzkystr. 2
A-1031 Vienna
AUSTRIA

phone: -43-1-71172-4458
fax: -43-1-7122331

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