[ RadSafe ] NJ hosts hearing on study of radiation in baby te eth

[Flood, John]

I've posted this idea here before, but I think it bears repeating now.

The quantities measured in teeth by the Tooth Fairy Project correspond to
single digit doses total for the first ten years of life.  If dose increased
by a few mrem in a decade above the average east-coast background can cause
a detectable increase in childhood cancer, Colorado would be uninhabitable -
littered with dead bodies.  The Project's premise CANNOT be correct.

Bob Flood


-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald Nicholls [mailto:Gerald.Nicholls at dep.state.nj.us] 
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 9:29 AM
To: dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com
Cc: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] NJ hosts hearing on study of radiation in baby
teeth

Mr. Kosloff,

My responses to your questions are in bold.  I've also added a note for
clarification at the end. 

1.  According to a news report that I read at app.com (operatedbby a
self-proclaimed anti-nuclear NJ newspaper) the young man (Cory Furst)
was
initially diagnosed with lung and liver cancer.  Has anyone ever
uncovered
any indications that low body burdens of Sr-90 has ever been observed
to
have any relationship to incidence of lung or liver cancer?  If so,
what
evidence is there that Sr-90 could overwhelm the many other common
carcinogens that can contribute to lung or liver cancer?  My
understanding is that Mr. Furst was diagnosed at age 19 months.  I have
never seen anything in the literature to link low body burders of Sr-90
to the type of combined liver-lung cancer he suffered from.  Mr. Mangano
did not offer any evidence for such a linkage, much less indicate that
Sr-90 was more likely to cause cancer than chemical carcinogens.

2.  Also according to app.com, Mr. Furst made the following statement: 
"If
there is a relationship between strontium-90 and cancer, then we must
shut
down the nuclear power plants producing it."
 Did anyone on the Commission ask what other human activities, if any,
should be required to conform to the same standard?  For example,
should
all activities that involve the release of benzene (eg, the use of
fingernail polish or gasoline) or carcinogenic chlorine reaction
byproducts
(eg, showering or bathing)  be forbidden? No.  But one of the
Commission members, an RSO at a major university, expressed strong
reluctance to associate cancer with any exposures due to nuclear power
plant operations.

3.  Did the commission point out that Mangano should also show the
relationship between the potassium-40 body burden and the Sr-90 body
burden?  Not with regard to a specific relationship between the two but
the larger dose for K-40 in the body versus Sr-90 at the levels being
found in baby teeth was discussed. 

For clarification, I should note that there are a number of pervasive
myths held by proponents of the Tooth Fairy Project that I have spoken
with.  As an example, they appear to subscribe to the notion that the
dose delivered by man-made radioactive materials is different in its
ability to cause cancer than dose delivered from naturally occurring
radioactive materials.   Another example is that they believe that there
is a cancer epidemic caused by environmental factors but they are
unwilling to discuss major risk factors such as smoking, alcohol
consumption and obesity when discussing adult cancers. 

Thanks for your comments.  I will pass them along to the Commission.  



Gerald P. Nicholls
NJ Dept. of Environmental Protection
609-633-7964
gerald.nicholl at dep.state.nj.us
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list
radsafe at radlab.nl

For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
http://radlab.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe