Re: Global heating and stupid greens

["Tom Savin" <lexicon@hotbot.com>]

Dr. Brickner and all radsafers:

Thank you for your thoughts. Please allow me to clarify. Why it is true that cows eat more grass,(the milk they produce may not be from the area of concern nor downwind) my thought was to see if there was a greater difference between human breastmilk production, which would magnify the problem (breast cancer) vs those who choose not to breastfeed.  In this way one would be able to determine if indeed that the area in question, Suffolk Co., had an affect on the populous.  Example: people have gardens and such, where they might grow broccoli (a Ca/strontium 90 concentrator) that would get into the mammary glands and therefore concentrate it into a women's breast - being active in production of milk vs. one who does not - why examine baby teeth (?)(I am a synic) My point is there a difference between what should be investigated, breast cancer, real epidemiologic data that they have at their disposal to examine, vs some journalistic hype (baby teeth because we all are fond of babies - the press thinks so).

I am always available for future insight.

                     Only the best for all,

                       Tom
--

On Thu, 26 Oct 2000 16:33:36   Dov Brickner wrote:
>At 07:04 26/10/00 -0500, you wrote:
>>Serious question radsafers - the report on the news this morning quoted
>scientists predicting that the world's temperature would increase 10
>degrees (I believe in farenheit) by the next 100 years.  This is kind of
>scary - there goes the Marshall Islands...etc.  Does anyone know of an
>organization that lobby's FOR nuclear power?  It seems that the Greens are
>this years candidate/winner for the Darwin award (eliminating themselves
>from the human genepool for blatant stupidity).  Oh, while on the soapbox,
>Not to give the Norms or Baldwins any ammunition but instead of looking at
>babyteeth why don't they exam breast cancer rates among women who breastfed
>their offspring vs those who did not?  Strontium 90 does become a component
>of human breastmilk.  
>>
>>                         Thanks everyone,
>>
>>                               Tom
>>
>>
>>
>>HotBot - Search smarter.
>>http://www.hotbot.com
>>************************************************************************
>>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>>
>100 years are very long time for the average journal reader. My grandsons
>may find it even attractive if my mid-desert hometown Beer-Sheva will have
>its own beach, for the first time since the Jurassic age. 
>I don't understand your remark about Sr in human milk. Cow-milk has
>probably higher concentrations of Strontium since, even with craziest diet,
>human females eat much less grass comparing with a cow. therfore a baby fed
>on cow's-milk is exposed to higher doses of Sr,  am I wrong?
>
>Dov (Dubi) Brickner    MD
>Beer-Sheva  ISRAEL
>
>brickner@in.zahav.net.il
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>


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