[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re[2]: Radioactive baby teeth flag cancer rate
Radsafers,
Notice the fallacy here (and yes, as much as we respect your right
to disagree with us Norm, this is a question you have to deal with
if you are honestly trying to get to the 'truth').
If Sr-90 in teeth are truly rising to the same levels as during the
above ground testing years, then why isn't Sr-90 in air, water,
milk etc. DOING THE SAME? Sr-90 was easily detectable in the
environment at the height of above-ground testing...consequently, a
few environmental samples around the current-day culprits (if you
accept that there really is an increase in Sr-90 in teeth) would
HAVE TO show the same, unless human physiology has dramatically
changed in 30 years.
The conclusion below that 'it must be the nukes' completely falls
apart if this simple demonstration isn't performed. (But of
course, comprehensive monitoring demonstrates otherwise every day.)
By the way, I have to take exception to a recent reference implying
that nuclear power plants without cooling towers are somehow more
'dangerous' than those with. I worked at a NPP where the
associated cooling lake is full of healthy aquatic life and
attracts waterfowl and bald eagles, all providing a huge net
increase in both quantity and diversity of wildlife in the area
compared to what existed before the NPP was built (which was a
mostly-dry creek bed running through a wheat field).
Finally, to change the subject yet again (I'm consolidating
unrelated responses into one posting; just doing my part to reduce
the traffic on RADSAFE)-
Norm, many, if not most, of us started out with ideas similar to
yours. The sun and air are 'free' (too cheap to meter?), so we
should just use them and not destroy mother earth, let's all dance
in fields of daisies and teach the world to sing in perfect
harmony, tra-la-la....(Sorry, got carried away there.)
When we started looking at these issues factually, not
romantically, we found that there are other energy sources
necessary for continued survival. Solar and wind have been
discussed for decades; if they were really the answer, I think we'd
be using them today. No one I know, including us pro-nukes, would
be opposed to them if they worked without too many drawbacks.
And with the current world population, if everyone goes 'back to
nature' and relies on what they grow themselves for energy, you
would see man-made pollution and environmental destruction on an
unprecedented scale (again, most 'environmentalists' know very
little about true environmental science, and have never 'run the
numbers' for this scenario).
People who favor nuclear power do not do so because of a
mad-scientist desire to destroy the world (if that were truly the
end-result of the technology, wouldn't nuclear supporters be
thinking suicidally and dooming their own children as well?). We
support it because we understand - factually and from experience,
not romantically or hypothetically - that the world would be much
safer and cleaner with increased development and use of nuclear
power.
Vincent King
vincent.king@doegjpo.com
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Radioactive baby teeth flag cancer rate
Author: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net> at Internet
Date: 5/3/00 9:35 AM
Interesting timing. Norm .. Seems you were mislead, or, you were
misleading all of us!
> "The data will be released at the meeting," said Dr. Janet
> Sherman, a speaker at this week's conference, which begins
> tomorrow. "But in general we are finding that strontium-90 levels in
> baby teeth of children born since 1990 are reaching the levels that
> were in existence during the above-ground bomb-testing years,
> which is very scary.
>
> "Where's it coming from? Well, we're not doing above-ground
> testing of bombs, so there's only one place it could be coming
> from. And that is normally acting nuclear reactors.
Norm stated the following regarding why data was being provided to
the scientific community:
May 1, 2000 I think they will publish their study when they are
ready. Perhaps a preliminary report will come out, I don't know. Not
part of the inner circle of RPHP.
May 1, 2000 And guys, for the lst time - the Tooth Fairy Project is
IN PROCESS. They are not going to release numbers until the Project
is finished and the report written. This seems darn reasonable and
scientific to me.
April 28 Second, my understanding of thi project is that they are
not out to "prove" that nuke's cause cancer, but to use this study as
a first step to get additional and farther reaching studies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Perle Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800)
548-5100
Director, Technical Extension 2306
ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Division Fax:(714) 668-3149
ICN Biomedicals, Inc. E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Personal Website: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205
ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com
************************************************************************
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