Claims of Sternglass & others

["Bolling, Jason E" <bollingje@ports.usec.com>]

My understanding of the claims of Sternglass and others regarding increasing

infant mortality rates (and also increasing miscarriage rates) is that the

small amounts of 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 (after birth).  The

very small amounts of radioactive materials are thereby concentrated in

vulnerable developing tissue.  The resulting dose from the material is

internal and concentrated on small areas.  (Therefore, the whole body dose

is very small, but the actual dose to the few specific grams of tissue where

the material concentrates is larger.)



Their claim is not that the *radiation* emitted from the plant is so very

dangerous, but the extremely small amounts of *contamination* are causing an

observable decrease in the rate of live births (so-called infant

mortality?).  Sternglass' book is available at

http://www.ratical.com/radiation/SecretFallout/



I don't agree with the findings of this book, but I believe above ground

nuclear testing was halted due to these kinds of concerns.  Are they valid?

I signed up for this mailing list to try to find out.  What kinds of studies

exist on the Web to refute these kinds of claims?  Sternglass appears to

have a whole website devoted to him.  Where is the data to show he is wrong?



Following on your suggestion, Mr. King, of taking measurements to PROVE the

claims, 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.  Does

anybody know if this has been done?



Just looking for truth,



Jason Bolling

Nuclear Criticality Safety





-----Original Message-----

From: Vincent A King/KINGVA/CC01/INEEL/US [mailto:KINGVA@INEL.GOV]

Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 12:24 PM

To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: Re: Tooth Fairy Project - NY Times - some responses







Norm, Norm, Norm.



WHAT radiation?  There IS NO RADIATION EXPOSURE to these 'poor innocents'

except what they get from nature or their doctors and dentists.



How do I know this?



Because measuring radiation and detecting radioactive materials is easy.

We know how to do it.  Also because every nuclear power plant monitors

their effluents and the environment around their site, including Salem and

Hope Creek.  YOU CAN MONITOR THE ENVIRONMENT TOO if you're really that

concerned about this. (HINT: downwind and downstream give the best results.

It also helps to look at the same time the culprit is there, rather than

before or after.)  Do you know what you will find?  Plenty of natural

radiation and nothing from the power plants.  No guessing is needed.



Why rely on conjecture and speculation when all you have to do is go out,

find the evidence (with readily available technology), and PROVE to

everybody beyond a shadow of a doubt that these "continual doses of low

level radiation" exist?  I've suggested this before and received no

response.



No fair, Norm.  You don't get to start with the premise of "continual doses

of low level radiation" when you haven't provided proof and the means to

prove it are available.



That reminds me, I'm also still waiting for answers to a couple of other

questions that I've asked:



-How do these radioactive materials sneak past effluent and environmental

monitoring in amounts large enough to give anyone a significant dose? It's

far more straighforward and accurate to monitor/model the pollutant from

source to receptor than to try to observe speculative 'effects' at a

distance.



-What's the right answer for spent nuclear fuel?  Keep it onsite? Ship it

to Yucca Mountain? (If so, how?)  Put it in the alley out back and hope

someone steals it?  It exists whether you like it or not (I know: you

don't), so you have to have some opinion on what to do with it.  You can't

exclude ALL options, so what is the option most acceptable to you?  (New

question - why do anti's act as if spent fuel has just now come into

existence?  It's only been around for decades...when does this great burden

on humanity begin?)



- Why don't people in higher background radiation areas than those around

Salem/Hope Creek show any negative health effects?  These people are ALWAYS

receiving "continual doses of low level radiation," but at levels even

higher than the ones you are concerned with.  If the health effects are

real, rather than imagined, then they should be evident anywhere there is a

higher radiation dose to people.



These questions aren't that hard, are they?  If you really are that

concerned, you should be able to provide an honest, thoughtful answer to

them.  And if you or your group can't generate enough logic to deal with

questions like these, why should your efforts to influence energy

generation alternatives be given any credence?



Vincent King,

Idaho Falls

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/