FW: fallout vs reactor emissions

["MacLellan, Jay A" <jay.a.maclellan@pnl.gov>]

I tried to send this on Sunday from home, but wasn't successful.  I'm going to
try again in the hopes of reaching a personal closure.  I'm wasting too much
time lately reading RadSafe messages.

Norm, your side says:
>...if you find (like we have) that there has been virtually no change in >Sr90
levels for children born in the early 1980s, late 1980s, and early >1990s, it's
got to be something other than old bomb test fallout >decaying.  The only other
answer is reactor emissions. 

What I read into your statement is that because the levels have been constant,
and we all know the Sr90 from fallout is decaying, power plants must be adding
an equal an amount equal to decay reducion.  
When I look at your statement, I ask what are the measured levels and their
uncertainty for each of those periods.  From that I have a better feel for
whether the numbers are "unexpected" for a predetermined decay rate.  Also, are
the levels around power plants different than the rest of the country?  If not,
is there enough Sr90 released from power plants to make-up for the decay
compensation over the whole country?
What I am saying is that "we" tend to dismiss the studies from your side because
they don't have enough scientific rigor to satisfy us, and even worse, the
people doing them don't seem understand what they lack.  Strongly held beliefs
and sincere intentions are not adequate substitutes for good science.
I commend you for subjecting yourself to our barrage.  If nothing else, I hope
we can convince you we believe what we believe based on our education and
experience.
Jay MacLellan, CHP
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html