Re: RADSAFE digest 3135

["Michael C. Baker" <mcbaker@lanl.gov>]

Telling people that radioactive isotopes will be found in their children's 
teeth has a much greater initial and lasting PR value.  That can be the 
only reason for the selection of baby teeth, since there is no 
scientifically defensible reason for the study's methodology.

Mike

>Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 21:19:35 EDT
>From: Holloway3@aol.com
>
>I think they are using a liquid scintillation counter.  The choice of  teeth
>to the exclusion of other samples is an odd one.  One would think that if
>they suspect emissions from nuclear power plants, that they should take
>environmental samples such as water and air, in the vicinity of the alleged
>offending plant.  Radiation is easy to measure but except for this tooth
>project, the critics have almost never resorted to measurements.  I guess
>talk is much cheaper.  Mangano's paper is a bad one, well deserving of the
>phrase "junk science"  and I would hope that those who agree with that will
>make their views known to the journal.  I intend to do just that.  Norm,
>could you tell us why your people have made so few measurements in the
>vicinity of nuclear power plants?  That is an oddity that deserves some
>comment from your side.
>
>R. Holloway
>Nevada Technical Associates, Inc.

----------------------------------
   Michael C. Baker
   Environmental Technology Group
   Los Alamos National Laboratory
   Mail Stop J594
   Los Alamos, NM 87545

   (505) 667-7334 (phone)
   (505) 665-8346 (fax)
----------------------------------
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html