Re: Claims of Sternglass & others

[gilsondg@songs.sce.com]

> Where is the data to show he is wrong?



Where is the data to show he's right?  Why is it that when someone like

this makes a claim, i.e., "radioactive materials that are allowed to be

discharged from NPPs are taken in by the mothers during pregnancy and

passed to the

baby either in utero or through breast milk or cow milk ..." that claim is

taken seriously without the corresponding data to back it up.



> I suppose it would be necessary to perform autopsies on fetuses that were

either miscarried or died at birth to determine if the concentration of

small amounts of contamination is actually occurring as is claimed.



My position is that because of the abundant data (which has been discussed

here IN DEPTH) that shows NO correlation between increasing/decreasing the

amount of minute or background exposure the onus should be on the

Sternglass's of the world to PROVE that their theories are correct. They

should be the ones you're asking to perform autopsies on fetuses to prove

that there were indeed concentrations of any NPP nuclides. They make a

startling accusation, with no proof and we have to go to work to disprove

it.  Yet if our industry made a wild accusation like, "no one will ever die

from radiation exposure", we would be vilified and they would (rightfully)

demand that we provide proof. We couldn't take their tactic, "oh no, I've

made the accusation, YOU prove it isn't true".



To often the accusations about health problems made by the anti's or the

environmentalists, are mad using information created through data mining.

If I use data mining (picking and choosing where and when and what data I

want) I can prove anything. Using their logic for instance, if I want to

prove that people only die in car accidents I just have to select the place

and the time where people only died in car accidents and that the

government needs to put a stop to all car use until further study proves

otherwise. If someone presented me with evidence that people in other areas

died from cancer, or heart attacks, or old age I could reject that evidence

because it doesn't fit the model. You might say that my example is

ridiculous but I submit that this method is exactly the method they used.

They chose the plants, the time frames, and the area (upwind instead of

down) that would prove their theory.



Just my humble though exceptionally accurate opinion of course ...



David G Gilson

Shipping Supervisor

SONGS Unit 1 Decommissioning