Re: FW: fallout vs reactor emissions

[Norman & Karen Cohen <norco@bellatlantic.net>]

Jay,
My comments below -

"MacLellan, Jay A" wrote:

> 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.
> ------ I'm trying to be more selective in what I reply to, 'cause this is takig up
> too much time as well, not enough time left to devote to shutting down Salem and
> achieving world peace! :)

--------------

>
> 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.

--------- That's my understanding of what the Tooth Fairy people are saying,
yes--------

>
> 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?

--------- I can't answer that. I think that one of the reasons for the Tooth Study
is to find out those answers. At least with your last question, ther should eb some
way to figure that out based on official release amounts. ------------

>
> 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.

---------- Thanks, but after all, the barrage is just on the computer screen and i
always have the delete key. What this discussion has done for me is to make me think
things through in order to give answers that have some amount of sense in them.
          I am convinced that you believe what you believe, etc. The only area I'd
differ is that I might use or add the word "culture" or "mind set" to what you say.
But I've doubted or intimated in any way (I hope ) that you all are insincere.
-------

norm

>
>

--
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