[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Health effects near nuclear power plants
Thanks Ron. I was guessing about Moses lake, and I guess I was thinking
about driving distance. In any case, you made my point: what can be
ascertained from baby teeth?
Ruth Weiner
ruth_weiner@msn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron L. Kathren <rkathren@tricity.wsu.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thursday, April 27, 2000 1:00 AM
Subject: 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
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html