Re: TFP Sr-90

[Franz Schoenhofer <schoenho@via.at>]

Hi, Kjell,

It is long past midnight in Austria, so I may start to use my free e-mails
to RADSAFE for a new day......



At 17:42 14.08.2000 -0500, you wrote:

>Radsafers,
>
>What has been said before by so many others is correct. The peak fallout did
>occur in 1963-1964 and therefore will make much more of an impact on teeth
>than the '50s fallout.  Yes, there are other environmental measurements
>which will allow one to consider the amount of Sr-90 in the environment.
>But, to get my own two cents worth in, I want to add the following.  The
>peak fallout in the early 60s was not also higher in airborne concentrations
>but it was also higher in total deposition.  And because these 100 megaton
>bombs 

The largest ever detonated was a Sovjet 60 Mt one. I remember it very well,
because Chrushtshev joked on it and said something like, "It was intended
only to be 50 Mt, but our scientists made a wrong calculation." But as a
sum your figure is without doubt correct.

put a lot of radionuclides into the stratosphere, it continued to wash
>out year after year for at least a decade.  Just check the Battelle BARC
>(Battelle Airborne Radionuclide Concentrations) report for a long history of
>airborne concentrations for things like C-14, Pu-238/239 etc, Cs-137,
>Pb-210, Be-7, Sr-90. Sb-125, and the list goes on and on.  

Thank you for this confirmation. I know that in most civilized countries
there have been conducted extensive programmes to check the contamination
of almost anything. People like Norman Cohen could easily look up these
data, if they only bothered and saved a few hours from their agitation to
unplug, to work for peace etc. in an attempt to verify their claims. "Don't
disturb me with facts, I have made up my mind!"

>To concentrate on Sr-90 and to ignore the other radioactive elements such as
>Ra-226 in teeth is working with blinders on so you can see only what you
>want to see.  

I respectfully disagree, they have thought of the natural radionuclides and
found out, that there is a big difference to artificial ones - don't you
remember Norman Cohens postings on that matter? "Don't disturb me with the
facts........" Obviously the immune system (cited by Norman Cohen to be
weakened by radiation and to be the cause for cancer!) can distinguish
between the 4.5 MeV alphas of a natural and an artificial radionuclide,
between the high energetic betas from Y-90 (artificial) and from for
instance Ac-228 (natural), between x-rays and gamma-rays of
radiopharmaceuticals used to save his life (good artificial radiation) and
gamma-rays of I-131 and Cs-137 (artificial, but bad, because originating
from nuclear fission). I suppose that he views the fCi's of I-131 emitted
from a nuclear power plant as bad, and the mCi's used in thyroid cancer
treatment as good. (Sorry, sometimes I get carried away by my sarcasm.) 




>So, finally, my addition to this dialogue is that there is a much easier way
>to test for Sr-90 in teeth.  Go straight to the cow's mouth where you can
>get a whole lot of teeth from most slaughter houses.  Compare the Sr-90 in
>calf's teeth to that in cow's teeth.  See what you get.  Granted, this does
>not carry the psychological or emotional impact as baby teeth.  This might
>make a great MS thesis project and could be done before the TFP gets any
>good results.  
>

Sorry, now I have to disagree seriously. Such questions have been studied -
at least by my lab and the Institute for Wildlife Research and Ecology in
Vienna. Just to show you, how complicated such research is: A cow lives for
- I suppose - a few years. So she will take up Sr-90 over these few years
and the activity concentration in her teeth will be "smeared" over these
few years, but not representative for one year. Different places have a
different fallout component, depending mostly on the precipitation. Next
negative argument: How many cows are grazing their whole life in a certain
area, ingesting grass with constant Sr-90 contamination? Aren't they rather
kept in stables and get a lot of their diet by some artificial mixture of
feed, in order to be wealthy, produce a lot of beef and many offsprings?
Where does that feed come from? Sure not from local supplies. I hope you
can follow my conclusion, that the Sr-90 in teeth will by far not be
representative for the area in which they live and are slaughtered. 

Because of these considerations, we have chosen as a bioindicator the
antlers of red deer. The reason was, that antlers are built every year new
by the animal and they roam a certain area, which can be said in
mathematical terms "they integrate of a certain area". Therefore the Sr-90
in antlers should be rather representative for the Sr-90 contamination in
the respective area and the respective year. But this is not strictly true
- the mechanism of forming the antlers and from where the calcium (and the
strontium) is taken is not really clear. One thing seems to be for sure,
namely that at least some of the calcium (and the strontium) is liberated
from the skeleton, which would represent a Sr-90 activity concentration as
well "smeared" over several years. Even taking the results from our
research in the very limited area of Austria (83 000 km2), we recognized,
that within this small area there were really tremendous differences to be
observed. Until 1964 the pattern followed was not the same in absolute
numbers (influence of different amount of precipitation), but very similar.
After the direct fallout ceased to a large extent, root uptake became
important. This varied depending on the soil, its pH, its chemical
composition, especially Ca-content and stable Sr-content. 

Any RADSAFEr read my message up to this line? If you have, I simply state,
that the processes which govern the uptake and the activity concentration
of Sr-90 in bones (and teeth) are extremely complicated. It is not possible
to establish a linear relation between a hypothetical local emission (the
global fallout was at least rather homogeneous) and 
the concentration in any teeth. 

Now let us talk about baby teeth. The concept of using baby teeth is not so
bad (it has obviously been borrowed by one of the many existing studies on
Sr-90 in baby teeth due to global fallout). Baby teeth are formed within a
rather short time and are lost within a rather short time after its
formation. Therefore the concept of using baby teeth (not childrens teeth!)
is promising. Why must it fail in a country like USA or other western
countries? I posted this some time ago and another RADSAFER has pointed
this out yesterday, that the calcium (and strontium) uptake of the baby is
most likely not at all related to the Sr-90 concentration in the
environment, where the baby is. The mother has eaten cheese from somewhere,
drank milk from somewhere else, had potatoes from another place, etc. etc.
The calcium taken up by the mother is not at all representative for the
area, she lives in. Her calcium plus Sr-90 taken up by her food and the
calcium plus Sr-90 of her skeleton, accumulated over a few decades will now
contribute to the skeleton of the baby. When the baby is delivered, it
might from mothers milk take up the same Ca-Sr mixture, or at least after
several months it will consume baby food, which has been mixed by
everything available, as pointed out by another RADSAFEr. 

So, how should the hypothetical emissions from a nuclear plant be
represented by the Sr-90 concentration in baby teeth? From the beginning
the tooth fairy project does not account for the different residues from
global fallout. On the other hand, I can tell you, that any release of
Sr-90 (how can it go undetected? how can it be not accompanied by I-131
etc?) will not be detected via baby teeth. Norman - now you can start new
projects which will be even more expensive. 

O.K., now I will committ a sacrileg: Why are these people trying to find
emissions and a link to cancer by testing for Sr-90 in baby teeth? Answer:
Simply because the world renown expert Sternglass made his fortune (whether
financially or regarding the status of an expert) by postulating in the
sixties that Sr-90 is the reason for childhood cancer and a slower
decreasing number of childrens death. 

I deeply distain people who make their money and their "reputation" by
using the deeply regrettable death of children from whatever cause.

Norman, did you read so far? Please refrain from answering. Stop bothering
us. 

To you, Kjell, my best wishes!

Franz


Franz Schoenhofer
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna
Austria
Tel.: +43-1-495 53 08
Fax.: same number
mobile phone: +43-664-338 0 333
e-mail: schoenho@via.at


Please note my new telephone number at my office!

Office:
Ministerialrat Dr. Franz Schoenhofer
Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management
Radiation Protection Department (BMLFUW I/8 U)
Radetzkystr. 2
A-1031 Vienna
AUSTRIA

phone: -43-1-71100-4458
fax: -43-1-7122331

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