Re: loosing, Tooth Fairy Project

[Franz Schoenhofer <schoenho@via.at>]

At 21:36 01.08.2000 -0500, you wrote:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>------=_NextPart_000_0013_01BFFBF9.00BBCF40
>Content-Type: text/plain;
>	charset="Windows-1252"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>What miscarriages?  

Ruth, this was a misunderstanding. When reading your comment I also thought
in the first moment that "I lost them..." referred to the children. I
blamed it on my limited knowledge of English!

But nevertheless I cannot resist to comment on Ediths comment. First of all
I recognize that there have been quite a few contributions, being not anti,
but critical. I myself would not regard myself as pro-nuclear, but as well
as not anti-nuclear. I simply recognize the fact, that nuclear power is
needed - even so called "nuclear-free countries" without nuclear power
plants import a rather big share of base load from countries and companies
producing it with nuclear power plants!!! Simply because it is cheap. I see
the need to use isotopes produced in reactors and accelerators in medicine,
in industry, in ecology etc. I see big benefits and advantages in the use
of both nuclear power and isotopes and I have never understood, how an
ecologist, who advocates correctly that the CO2 emissions should be cut
down on the other side can be anti-nuclear. As a natural scientist I have
to clearly see the advantages and the disadvantages and to compare them. I
cannot fall down in psychologically motivated emotions, which are moreover
produced by certain groups who make much money on that, by mass media, who
need their sensational catastrophes in order to make more money, and
neglect all the benefits. Moreover as a natural scientist I have to compare
risks and I cannot fight the risk of femtoCuries of Sr-90 or Cs-137 and
neglect the picoCuries and nanoCuries of alpha-emitters like Rn-222 and
Ra-226. The one is artificial, the other is natural - not to say
"biologically" grown...... Edith should read the RADSAFE archive to find
out how much I myself have been flamed, because I am of the opinion that
irradiation of food is not necessary in our Western world, but might be a
good option to help developing and underdeveloped countries to ensure
enough food for their population.

>     Have you seen the Website: www.radiation.org , It presents
>    the findings of  world renowned scientists  who are supporting
>    the study of baby teeth for  levels of strontium 90.

Yes, after reading this comment I have looked at it. I have not looked for
everything, mostly on the Tooth Fairy Project, which I have criticized
extensively before as can be found in the RADSAFE archives. Frankly said, I
had a feeling, if I look for more, I would vomit. It is a compilation of
the worst possible scientific nonsense, which is presented in an extremely
professional way to create an atmosphere of trust and believe with
non-professionals and potential supporters and which works with all the
well known symbols for emotions - children, women (breast cancer), attacks
on the "FEDS", health, "independent scientists", "father of a child who
died from cancer" and many more key words. There are clearly target groups,
like the "concerned citizens", the "concerned mothers", the philanthrops. 

You wrote about "world renowned scientists". I must have overlooked their
names, because I do not see any ones at that web-site. Is it Alec Baldwin?