Re: fallout vs reactor emissions

["D. Kosloff" <dkosloff@ncweb.com>]

I have some information on some of the questions you posed.  I have
intermingled them with the questions below with some snipping (not sniping):
>
> (1) would not the population decrease
> attributable to job loss following a nuclear plant closing affect the
study
> that "cancers and infant mortality go down in these areas quite soon after
> the closure of a nuclear power plant"?  Certainly cancers and infant
> mortality will decrease when the population drops!  Check the US Census
> Bureau for population changes in the areas that Mr. Mangano speaks of and
> see if this isn't so.

I looked at two cases that Mr. Marangano discussed.  The most detailed
involves Rancho Seco and the Sacramento area.  The area abound Rancho Seco
was lightly populated.  Mr. Marango pulled in the Sacramento metropolitan
area (20 miles away) to develop his conclusions.  Rancho Seco employment was
just a medium size blip on the Sacramento employment radar screen.  Of
course any Rancho Seco health effects would be only a tiny blip (if any) on
the Sacramento health radar screen.  The second case that I looked at was
Lacrosse.  He included the distant city of Lacrosse, but ignored the county
just across the river from the plant.  Lacrosse was a small plant, so
although Lacrosse  is smaller than Sacramento, the effects on the city of
Lacrosse would have been small.   The key to this type of study is to get a
city into the data, as long as it somewhere in the vicinity of the plant.
How many people who read about the study know how far Rancho Seco is from
Sacramento or what the area around Rancho Seco looked like 12 years ago?

In 1993 a similar claim (by Dr. Sternglass) related to the Perry, Ohio plant
was investigated by the Ohio Department of Health.  This was reported on
Octorber 7, 1993 in the Cleveland Plain Dealer.  Here is what B. Kim
Mortensen, chief of the epidemiology and toxicology bureau was reported to
have said:  "The rise is artificial.  He created the rise.  If you look at
what he did, he picked points, whether intentional or not, that made them go
in the direction he wanted."  The article further stated:  "Mortensen said
the increase is dure to pregnant women smoking, poor prenatal care and the
mothers age, which Strenglass did not consider.  Mortensen said those are
recognized as the primary risk factors associated with low birth-weight."

This techinique is further discussed in "Trashing Nuclear Power", which you
probably can't find in any library within 100 miles of where you live.

On November 27, 1994, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that its "analysis
found a correlation between low-birthweight babies and income.   Then on
July 11, 1997, the Akron Beacon Journal reported, "Groups say pollution may
be factor in one in four cases of sudden infant death syndrome in region".
Here the villian was microscopic soot particles.


Don Kosloff dkosloff@ncweb.com
2910 Main St. Perry OH


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