[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Claims of Sternglass & others
Jason,
I think that's a good question. We can probably find a pretty close natural
match to most of the NPP releases. For example Cs-137 has a 662 keV gamma
while Bi-214 ( radon progeny ) has a gamma line at 665 keV. If you can't
find an exact match in the gamma line, you can always produce a given gamma
ray energy by taking a higher energy gamma ray and scattering it. For
example, you can make the same 662 keV Cs-137 gamma ray by scattering the
1461 keV K-40 gamma ray.
The other thing to consider is that our bodies don't have built in radiation
detectors. Our bodies only react to a trail of charged particles caused by
the radiation, not to the radiation itself. A 14608 keV K-40 gamma ray can
leave the identical trail as the 662 keV Cs-137 gamma ray. It does not have
to give up its entire energy to the tissue.
For alpha or beta decay the situation is even simpler. These charged
particles slowly loose their energy in tissue. The end of the track produced
by a 7.7 MeV alpha particle from Po-214 (natural) would be identical to the
track made by a 5.5 MeV alpha from Am-241 (man-made).
There are also natural radionuclides that seek out specific organs. For
example, radium will behave similarly to strontium.
I don't buy the argument about if Cs-137 was to blame then French people
would have higher infant mortality. French people probably drink less milk
and more wine than U.S. residents. If you don't drink milk then the pathway
to the human is broken, no matter how much Cs is on the grass. (Ecological
studies can yield useful information, but the obvious confounders have to be
accounted for.)
BUT, there are a whole lot of other pathways where you can get your
radiation dose. For a discussion on these and their effects see the post by
P. Duport.
BTW, dose limits are mostly based on Atom bomb (man-made radiation) data.
Kai Kaletsch
Environmental Instruments Canada Inc.
http://www.eic.nu
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bolling, Jason E" <bollingje@ports.usec.com>
To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 5:55 AM
Subject: 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? (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/