[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Claims of Sternglass & others
well, the typical adult body contains about 100,000 pCi of K-40, with a resultant dose of about 40 mrem/yr. The radiation dose from K-40 in the soil is about 10 mrem/yr.... this is pretty much the same around the world. so, going back to the French experience...they have a lot of nuclear power plants that release the same types and quantities of effluents just like U.S. nuclear power plants and their residents have about 100,000 +/- pCi of K-40 and other naturally occuring isotopes just like U.S. residents and..the country is bordered by nuclear power plants i.e. Switzerland, Germany..so one could reasonably expect the average French resident to be "exposed" to very small amounts of radioactive materials in quantities equal to or greater than those of U.S. residents and STILL the infant mortality in France is about half the rate in the U.S. Please explain that to me as I am having a difficult time understanding this issue. Perhaps I am just too dense to understand that U.!
S. radiation and releases from U.S. power plants are so much more harmful.....
P. Milligan, CHP, RPh.
301-415-2223
>>> "Bolling, Jason E" <bollingje@ports.usec.com> 05/02/02 02:32PM >>>
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/
************************************************************************
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/