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

[dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com]

Mr. Nicholls,

Thank you for your prompt and informative responses to my questions.  You,
the Commission and the TFP might be interested in the article summarized
below from today's app.com:

"Cancer risk high due to diesel engines"

"Report puts N.J. 2nd only to N.Y."


"Published in the Asbury Park Press 02/23/05"

"By Lauren O. Kidd, Gannett State Bureau"

"Old diesel engines make New Jerseyans the second-most vulnerable in the
nation to cancer stemming from emitted soot and the fourth-most vulnerable
to all diesel-related health risks, according to a nationwide report
released Tuesday.  The report, released by the Clean Air Task Force, a
Boston-based nonprofit, ranked New Jersey behind only New York in its
diesel-related cancer risks."

It would appear that any imaginary potential Sr-90 health risk to children
would be overwhelmed by the real diesel-related risks.  So if the folk in
the TFP were really interested in health risks to children, they would
immediately drop their fanciful posturing and attend to ameilorating real
health risks.

Although the bold print gets dropped out by either the RADSAFE or my local
software, I had no problem finding your earlier helpful responses.

Thank you,
Don Kosloff, Nuclear Prol...(oh whatever)
Perry OH & Shippingport PA




                                                                                                                                            
                      "Gerald Nicholls"                                                                                                     
                      <Gerald.Nicholls at dep.s        To:       <dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com>                                               
                      tate.nj.us>                   cc:       <sandyfl at earthlink.net>, <radsafe at radlab.nl>, <radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl>     
                                                    Subject:  Re: [ RadSafe ] NJ hosts hearing on study of radiation in baby    teeth       
                      02/17/2005 12:29 PM                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                            




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




-----------------------------------------
The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal
and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for
delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you
have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately,
and delete the original message.