[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Teeth and other studies

Dear Edith,

OK, it is possible that the study into "nuclear power" is warranted.  The
only suggestion is that it should be addressing not only the "nuclear
power", but the exposure to ionising radiation in general.  I am sure that
children living on 'radioactive beaches' in Northern Sri Lanka and in
India's Kerala State receiving doses of ionising radiation immeasurably
higher than any child in the US due to operation of all nuclear power
stations taken together.  
I am not even talking about Ramsar area in Iran...  What about them?
(Dear Radsafers, if someone can let me know about the results of any
epidemiological studies for the regions above, it will be greatly
appreciated).

The biggest problem with interpretation of results of such 'general' study
would be finding a balance between protection of the public and the common
sanity based on quite 'shaky' statistics...  
Without such a balance we might as well ban all air travel above 500 m off
the ground and shut down coal fired power stations together with nuclear
ones (since, if I am not mistaken, they release more 'radiation' than
nuclear ones).  Oil and gas should also not be extracted and used due to
radioactivity in scales and sludges, which will need to be disposed somehow.
And, of course no fertiliser is to be used...

So far, the biggest problem as I see it (just quoting myself here):
1.	Those who have the knowledge are not trusted by the public to tell
the whole truth, since they are seen as being mainly concerned about their
posts and funding.  (I am not aware about this happening lately, though the
'Chernobyl saga' is both unforgettable and unforgivable...)
2.	The so-called "lay' public is considered by scientists as not being
able to understand ionising radiation and effects of exposure.  The usual
argument is that "logical reasoning will be substituted by emotional
reaction at the very moment the word 'radiation' is mentioned, so why
bother?"   (Unfortunately this is often the case...)

Your opinion will be appreciated.

Kind regards
Nick Tsurikov
Eneabba, Western Australia
http://eneabba.net/ <http://eneabba.net/> 

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	edith gbur [mailto:egbur@adelphia.net]
		Sent:	Thursday, 10 August 2000 15:19
		To:	Multiple recipients of list
		Subject:	Re: Why study baby teeth?

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