Re: loosing, Tooth Fairy Project

["edith gbur" <egbur@adelphia.net>]

Thank you for your responses, referrals, and most of all your rants which
have helped answer my questions and led to more questions.

Based upon informaton from the NRC referral, I learned there are 103 nuclear
plants in the US, most of them are being sold and about
a dozen plants have closed. Deregulation and the shift toward natural
gas plants in the Northeast  were attributed to  this trend.
r
 I learned from another  source there are 434 plants worldwide. About 121
reactors under construction have beeen cancelled and 120 old nuclear
reactors have been closed.  How do you explain this world-wide  decline
in nuclear power production?

A few observations from a pyschological viewspoint to promote tolerance..
Because  financial gain
is attributed by opposing views, The need for recognition is a powerful
motivating factor and  in my opinion
should not be faulted. People tend to listen to personal stories
rather than to dry statistics and is part of any appeal for support.


 When I visited the site I looked for scientific evidence and findings
this is what I saw.

From: "Franz Schoenhofer" <schoenho@via.at>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: loosing, Tooth Fairy Project


> 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?


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html