Re: Why study baby teeth?

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

 Why do you as a scientist  reject this project whose purpose is to find the
source of the cancer cluster in Toms River and may have implications for
other communities?   The prupose of the
project is to find why so many children in a concetrated area
of sufffering from leukemia and bone cancer.  To determine the
health threat that could be posed by Oyster Creek.  Dont'
citizens have a right to know
The tooth fairy project through a questionairre knows
where the mother lived while she was pregnant and
Becasue
we know where the child was born   We know that
cancer is complex and varied.
I did not attribute the ca cluster to Oyster Creek,
and said that the study would prove or disprove the
theory.  I strongly suspect that it is the case but
it remains to be proven.
 For the past three years a variety of state and federal government studies
have failed to come up with answers.  Much work has been done to cleaning up
polluted sites including Ciba Geigy but  unusually high levels of childhood
cancer persist.
   Because other causes have been ruled out, a scientifc
inquiry into nuclear power is warranted.
  .
 You already know that a study of baby teeth  supported by
the government concluded  that Sr-90 from atmospheric weapons testing
produced childhood cancer - leukemia and bone
cancers.  Dr Sternglass, of the Tooth Fairy Project testified
before Congess in 1963 shortly thereafter a partial test treaty
was signed.
 Do you not believe that public health is at stake



---- Original Message -----
From: "Ted de Castro" <tdc@xrayted.com>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: Why study baby teeth?


>
> Norman & Karen Cohen wrote:
> > The question we are trying to answer with
> > the TFP is - to what degree did the low level radiation emitted and
leaked by
> > Oyster Creek Nuke contribute to these clusters, especially in
combination with
> > the chemical pollution from Ciba-Geigy and other chemical companies. -
> >
> In other words:
>
> You've already decided the all causes (since of course there MUST be a
> cause) BEFORE the study was started.  The only purpose of the study is
> to apportion the blame.
>
> No one said there were NOT clusters - what IS being said is clusters are
> simply an expected and natural consequence of ANY non-ordered
> distribution.
> ************************************************************************
> 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