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

[Richard L. Hess]

Hi, Floyd,

I never said the sky was falling. What I wanted to understand was how the TFP
folks indicated

> > The study, which is ongoing, has found that levels of the element
> > were 30 to 50 percent higher among children living in counties with
> > nuclear plants, according to Joseph J. Mangano, national coordinator
> > of the Radiation and Public Health Project.


Your homework was wonderful, but I do have one units question to start...
"97 microsieverts, (pSv) [9.7 millirem(mrem)] "

Is this picosieverts (pSv) or microsieverts (µSv)? 1 Sv=100 rem ... so I think
the text "microsieverts" is correct and "pSv" should be "µSv"

The challenge we have is that not all font sets properly show "µSv" as the Greek
"mu" so perhaps the darned cornputer translater "mu" to "p" To be safe, where I
say "µSv" I could also incorrectly (but more universally translatable) write
"uSv"

In any event, I'm stuggling just to come to grips with R and rem -- while I'm
not as bad as an old curmudgeon on another list (who insists on "cycles per
second" and not "hertz"), may I stick with rem and R for a bit?

If the background radiation (that I've measured) runs from 5-15 micro R on a G-M
tube, then that means the exposure is 5-15 micro rem per hour, right? Then that
translates , based on your number of 1 mrem (milli) per year for the average
dose within 50km of a nuclear power plant, that is then equivalent (to make the
math easy say 10 micro rem per hour) of 100 hours of normal background
radiation. There are 8760 hours in a year, so the dose from the power plant is
about 1% of the natural background dose.

Is this, in a rough-order-of-magnitude sort of way in the ballpark or did I drop
a decimal point someplace?

And, as someone else said, living in Denver would be much worse than what I've
measured close to sea level.

Another statement is "The worldwide average effective
dose from inhaling Sr-90 (1945 to 1985) is 9.2 pSv (0.92 mrem). "

Is that an annual dose or a cumulative dose? Let's round that to 1 mrem and
assume that it's per year, then this is on a par with the average dose from the
power plants.

Of course, the "average" dose from power plants is an interesting number. Does
that mean that you could have 9 really clean power plants and 1 dirty one and
the dirty one was releasing 10 mrem a year? Also, if you average to a 50 km
radius, does that mean that people at the fence get 100x what people at 50km
get?

I'm not a "sky is falling" person, but when I see these numbers thrown around I
like to understand where they came from. My original post was intended to be
skeptical of the TFP, but asking for more information. I certainly think the
international studies cited are more trustworthy.

The one thing I don't understand is that the TFP apparently doesn't do any
controls, but if they don't do controls, how can they say that the percentages
are elevated.

They are also not apparently making claims to health risks.

Also, if I read their numbers and Floyd's numbers correctly we're talking about
the difference between 1.0 and 1.3 or 1.5 mrem per year of exposure. To my way
of thinking, that is too difficult to even accurately measure when it is 1% of
the total ionizing radiation dose acheived in a year.

Cheers,

Richard
--

Richard L. Hess
http://www.richardhess.com/


Quoting "Flanigan, Floyd" <Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com>:

> Before screaming that the sky is falling, homework is in order:
>
>
> Atmospheric Nuclear Weal2ons Tests. Approximately 622 petabecquerells (PBq)
> (16.8
> million curies) of Sr-90 were produced and globally dispersed during
> atmospheric
> nuclear testing . The worldwide average effective dose from ingesting Sr-90
> (1945 to
> date) is 97 microsieverts, (pSv) [9.7 millirem(mrem)] . The worldwide average
> effective
> dose from inhaling Sr-90 (1945 to 1985) is 9.2 pSv (0.92 mrem). No
> statistically
> significant excess of biological effects caused by Sr-90 exposures at levels
> characteristic of worldwide fallout has been demonstrated (NCRP Report No.
> 110).
> Chernobyl Accident. Approximately 8 PBq (216,000 curies) of Sr-90 were
> released
> during the April 1986 Chernobyl accident. Apart from childhood thyroid
> cancer, no
> increase in overall cancer incidence or mortality has been observed that can
> be
> attributed to ionizing radiation (UNSCEAR 2000).
> Nuclear Power Plants. On average, the total annual release of Sr-90 into the
> atmosphere from all U.S . nuclear power plants is typically 37 megabecquerels
> (1/1000th
> curie) . The annual average effective dose to individuals living within 50 km
> (31 miles) of
> a nuclear power plant from all released radionuclides is 5 pSv (0.5 mrem) for
> pressurized-water reactors and 10 pSv (1 mrem) for boiling-water reactors
> (UNSCEAR
> 2000).
>
> I'm keeping my left hand raised while I write this. Just trying to save the
> watch. :-)
>
> Floyd W.Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On
> Behalf Of Richard L. Hess
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 11:13 PM
> To: sandyfl at earthlink.net
> Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] NJ hosts hearing on study of radiation in baby
> teeth
>
>
> > The study, which is ongoing, has found that levels of the element
> > were 30 to 50 percent higher among children living in counties with
> > nuclear plants, according to Joseph J. Mangano, national coordinator
> > of the Radiation and Public Health Project.
>
> So I know the TFP is considered bad science here, but how do they come up
> with
> this increase and if this was leaking out wouldn't the NGS's detectors go
> into
> alarm?
> --
>
> Richard L. Hess
> http://www.richardhess.com/
>
>
> Quoting Sandy Perle <sandyfl at earthlink.net>:
>
> > NJ hosts hearing on study of radiation in baby teeth
> >
> > EWING, N.J. (AP) - Children who live near nuclear plants carry
> > lifelong radioactive residue, according to a group that appealed for
> > support Wednesday in a public hearing before the New Jersey
> > Commission on Radiation Protection.
> >
> > The nonprofit Radiation and Public Health Project, which has been
> > conducting the "Tooth Fairy Project," examining the baby teeth of
> > children who grow up near nuclear reactors, said the data may hold
> > clues to stemming increases in childhood cancer.
> >
> > The Tooth Fairy Project, begun in 1998, has collected more than 4,000
> > baby teeth nationally - 600 in New Jersey - and examined them for
> > evidence of Strontium-90, a radioactive byproduct of atomic reactions
> > that lodges in bones and teeth.
> >
> > The study, which is ongoing, has found that levels of the element
> > were 30 to 50 percent higher among children living in counties with
> > nuclear plants, according to Joseph J. Mangano, national coordinator
> > of the Radiation and Public Health Project.
> >
> > "In several areas, including Ocean and Monmouth counties, RPHP found
> > that trends in Sr-90 in baby teeth were matched by similar trends in
> > cancer diagnosed in children under age 10," he said.
> >
> > Edith Gbur, a spokeswoman for Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, said high
> > cancer rates in some parts of New Jersey have not been explained by
> > authorities.
> >
> > "We need to demonstrate scientifically that the nuclear plant has
> > harmed people, especially children," she said.
> >
> > New Jersey has four nuclear power plants: Oyster Creek in Ocean
> > County and Salem I and II and Hope Creek in Salem County.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>