[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Claims of Sternglass & others
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Bolling, Jason E <bollingje@ports.usec.com>
An: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Datum: Freitag, 03. Mai 2002 14:28
Betreff: RE: Claims of Sternglass & others
>OK, OK,
>
>I am not saying Sternglass is right (or even close to right). However, a
>question, if I may.... :)
>
>Isn't it true that the body's response to radiation/contamination is
>specific to the type of radiation (alpha, beta, gamma, or neutron) and its
>energy? Are the naturally occurring sources (i.e., K-40) significantly
>different from the sources from NPPs such that the response to the
naturally
>occurring sources has been successfully adapted to (via evolution) and
these
>new "artificial" sources have a different impact?
---------------------------------------------
No, for the lung tissue it is the same, whether the alpha-particle comes
from the short-lived daughters of radon or from the "deadly" plutonium. It
is the same to any tissue, whether a gamma-ray in a certain energy range
comes from an artificial radionuclide or a naturally occurring one and the
same is true for the beta particles. K-40 is a rather high-energy
beta-emitter - so is the artificially produced Sr-90/Y-90. You find much
more alpha-emitters among NORM than in artificially created nuclear waste -
and they are the "dangerous" ones when incorporated. The cells cannot
distinguish between "artificial" and "natural" radiation - and how should it
adapt? Are the cells supposed to recognized, that this 4.5 MeV alpha comes
from a natural or an artificial source?
The natural radium accumulates in bone tissue, so does the artificial Sr-90.
Natural K-40 is concentrated in muscle tissue - so does the artificial
Cs-137. Most radionuclides are concentrated in some organs. This is more
than well known and has been investigated not only extensively, but in my
opinion exhaustively. This is reflected in the maximum permissible uptakes,
defined for each radionuclide. So this has always been considered. That some
anti-everythings now tell on RADSAFE the "surprising" news, that
radionuclides are concentrated in different organs is really embarrassing.
All maximum permissible concentrations, all limits for uptake, for doses
etc. are based on this extensive research conducted during many decades and
in all parts of the world, which has been published in actually tons of
papers. The results have been sifted by national and international
organisations, have been compiled and put into regulations. Regulations in
different parts of the world differ - but only slightly. A maximum
permissible concentration of 10E-4 Bq/l is not much different from 2*10E-4.
Thousands - or maybe tens of thousands of scientists have worked on that
issue and have considered any possible scenario. Once again - to hear the
news, that different radionuclides concentrate in different organs is not
only embarrassing, because mentioning this implies that all the tens of
thousands of scientists never recognized this fact and have not considered
it.
The problem is, that radiation protection is no easy task. People have to
study it for years and it needs many more years of practice to really
understand most of the issues dealt with on RADSAFE. It is no shame, not to
understand everything on this topic, at least I am not ashamed, that I do
not understand anything about NIR, accelerators, x-ray-equipment and so on.
BUT, and this is the big difference to those "antis", like Norman Cohen,
his favourites Sternglass, Magnago, Lochbaum (I still do not know, who he
is), Alec Baldwin (!) or some super models: I do not question this part of
the science, because I cannot judge it myself and I never would dare to
question anything that thousands of experts in e.g. NIR have researched,
have discussed and have agreed on. I do not comment on world economic
issues, because I have no idea about it. But some Alec Baldwin or some super
model are obviously authorized to speak about radiation hazards, radioactive
contamination, about cancer and death. The public buys it - because such
ridiculous celebrities are obviously the non-plus-ultra in science. But the
public also buys McDonalds hamburgers, if it is extensively enough
advertised. People flock into cinemas where the most recent "fantasy films"
are presented, which lack any reality and any credibility. It seems that in
public opinion radiation protection has a similar reputation like scientific
fiction.
May I summarize, that it is nice, that some people pose some questions, but
it is not nice, that they imply by that, that scientists have not considered
them.
Franz
(I know, probably a dumb
>question. To the body, ionizing radiation is ionizing radiation and the
>only difference should be the amount of energy deposited.)
>
>Just looking for truth,
>
>Jason Bolling
>Nuclear Criticality Safety
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Patricia Milligan [mailto:PXM@nrc.gov]
>Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:41 PM
>To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu; bollingje@ports.usec.com
>Subject: 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/
>
************************************************************************
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/