Sr-90 in the environment

[Holloway3@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/12/00 3:44:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Norm Cohen  
writes:

<< But (sorry), . the point of the TFP is that Sr-90, because it is man-made, 
can act as a marker, it can point the finger right to the offending emitter, 
in this case, nuke plants. And, if Sr-90 is coming from nuke plants, then the 
person who has rec'd the Sr-90 is also getting a whole cocktail of low level 
radiation from everything else a nuke plant emits. - >>

Norm,

A great deal is already known about nuclear plant emissions and about the 
levels of Sr-90 before the plants came online.  To my knowledge, there is no 
data suggesting that nuclear power plants emit substantial amounts of Sr-90.  
What is a substantial amount?  An amount that could be detected above the 
measurable amounts from world-wide fallout.  Basically the tooth fairy 
project is trying to reinvent the wheel to use a trite phrase.  I believe 
that experts in environmental radiation  would never promote a project such 
as the Tooth Fairy Project because the result can easily be predicted in 
advance.  All that will be found in teeth is Sr-90 from fallout.  

To approach the problem another way, Sr-90 is not volatile, which suggests 
that the only way it can enter the environment from a nuclear plant is 
through some liquid effluent. Suppose a plant did emit Sr-90 in liquid 
effluent.  Where will it go? It must simply flow to the nearest stream, if it 
gets off the plant site at all,  and  then enter a river.  Where are the 
nearest crops grown - in a river?  Not exactly. Even if substantial amounts 
of Sr-90 enter a river, it is still difficult to imagine any reasonable 
pathway for them to enter food and thus teeth.  There are of course, regular 
monitoring programs mandated by the regulatory authorities that would spot 
any such contamination. So in my opinion, the whole tooth fairy project is 
foolish and it is designed by people who don't know what they are doing or if 
they know, they are intentionally dishonest in their planning and promotion 
of the project.  

Dishonest tactics are sometimes used by anti-nuclear activists.  A couple of 
years ago, Helen Caldicott called for a boycott of produce grown near a 
nuclear plant in the Northeast.  She was implying of course that radioactive 
emissions were finding their way into the environment from the plant.  I sent 
her a registered letter and asked for evidence to support her (implied) 
claim.  She never responded. She was of course trying to raise fears based on 
the idea that there was contamination. She could not provide any evidence to 
support her views.  Talk is cheap and the activists have plenty of that. But 
they are not very good at providing solid evidence to back up their claims. 

Norm, let me suggest that you need to study the currently available data 
about what a nuclear power plant emits. You imply that there are a lot of 
emissions in your paragraph above.  How about giving us some real data when 
you make a claim like that?  Your comments thus far suggest that you are not 
too well acquainted with the subject. 

R.  Holloway
Nevada Technical Associates, Inc.
http://www.ntanet.net/ 


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