AW: [ RadSafe ] " NRC Review Disputes Tooth Fairy Radiation Claims "

[Franz Schönhofer]

Dear Jaro,

Thank you so much for forwarding the "NRC review disputes Tooth Fairy
Radiation Claims" and your summary. 

I have followed the TFP closely, because I have worked a lot on Sr-90
radioecology and especially on the possible influence from the Chernobyl
accident. Much of what can be found in the summary you provided is in
line with what I have posted to RADSAFE since years regarding the TFP,
which I have always regarded and still regard as an almost criminal
attempt to collect money for supporting certain groups, using
"celebrities" and "scientists" to collect money and distributing it. The
"scientists" put forward are only to be questioned on their competence -
or probably no competence has to be questioned. 

There are two major concerns I have: I tried to load down the content of
the links you provided. While the first two links worked well I have
been unsuccessfully trying to link to the rest. "Server not found". I
now wonder: Is this directed to myself - because some RADSAFErs did not
like my contributions to RADSAFE and put me on a exclusion list to US
government sites? Is this site closed because it might intervene with a
group favoured by somebody? Or am I totally mistaken, because this is
just a frequently occurring problem?   

Franz


Franz Schoenhofer
PhD, MR iR
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna
AUSTRIA
phone -43-0699-1168-1319


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im
> Auftrag von Franta, Jaroslav
> Gesendet: Montag, 07. März 2005 17:51
> An: Radsafe (E-mail)
> Betreff: [ RadSafe ] " NRC Review Disputes Tooth Fairy Radiation
Claims "
> 
> http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=4&catid=329
> NRC Review Disputes Tooth Fairy Radiation Claims
> Summary
> 
> In response to a request from the New Jersey Department of
Environmental
> Protection, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) recently issued a
> report
> that supports the conclusion of previous studies that claims of a link
> between Strontium-90 and cancer are unsubstantiated by sound science.
In
> its
> report, the NRC stated that "there is little reason to believe that
> airborne
> emissions from any civilian nuclear power plant are contributing to
> childhood cancer in populations living near these plants."
> 
> The request from the New Jersey authorities centered on an article
> published
> in the International Journal of Health Services, "Strontium-90 in
> deciduous
> teeth as a factor in early childhood cancer." Jay Gould, a co-founder
of
> the
> anti-nuclear Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP) organization,
> authored the article. RPHP is an anti-nuclear citizens group based in
> Manhattan that has a long-range goal of closing down nuclear power
plants
> in
> the United States. The group claims that Strontium-90 shows up in
teeth of
> infants and is directly responsible for an increase in breast cancer
rates
> on Long Island.
> 
> The NRC's review of the issue clearly explains how Strontium-90 is a
major
> by-product of Cold War aboveground nuclear weapons testing conducted
by
> the
> United States and the Soviet Union. The two countries signed the
Nuclear
> Test Ban Treaty in 1963, effectively ending aboveground testing. Much
of
> the
> Strontium-90 remaining in the environment is directly linked to the
> weapons
> testing and little Strontium-90 is produced at the nation's nuclear
power
> plants. In fact, any Strontium-90 releases are so small as to be
> undetectable when compared to amounts already in the environment. A
> general
> consensus of the scientific community is that it is misleading and
> reckless
> to equate the mere presence of a radioactive isotope, many of which
are
> produced naturally by the environment and the human body, with adverse
> health effects.
> 
> The NRC substantiates its case by citing studies done by the National
> Institutes of Health's National Cancer Institute, the Agency for Toxic
> Substances and Disease Registry and an epidemiology study conducted in
> Suffolk County in New York that dispute the RPHP's report. Other
studies
> including one from the American Cancer Institute's New Jersey Division
in
> 1997 and a report from the United Nation's Scientific Committee on the
> Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) released in fall 2000 further
> support
> the NRC's review. In fact, the UNSCEAR definitively reported that
> radiation
> emanating from nuclear power plants is "one twelve-thousandth of
natural
> background radiation."
> 
> Information
> 
> 
> Letter from New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to U.S.
> Nuclear Regulatory Commission
> <http://www.nei.org/../documents/NJDEPLettertoUSNRC.pdf>
> 
> Letter from U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to New Jersey
Department of
> Environmental Protection
> <http://www.nei.org/../documents/USNRCLettertoNJDEP.pdf>
> 
> U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Enclosure 1: Issues Raised By
Gould,
> et.
> al. <http://www.nei.org/../documents/USNRCIssuesRaisedbyGouldetal.pdf>
> 
> U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Enclosure 2: Talking Points
> <http://www.nei.org/../documents/USNRCTalkingPoints.pdf>
> 
> U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Enclosure 3: Strontium
> <http://www.nei.org/../documents/USNRCStrontium.pdf>
> _______________________________________________
> 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