Re: Newspaper article on Plutonium

["Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe@ucdavis.edu>]

At 10:16 AM 9/15/97 -0500, StevenFrey @ aol.com 
wrote:
>It's my understanding that the incidence rates of many types of cancer have 
>increased significantly over the last few decades.  To my knowledge no 
>satisfactory explanations have been found.  Under these circumstances how 
>meaningful is it to say "no increase in stochastic effects have ever been 
>detected or reported among the peoples of the world from this event"?  How
can 
>a contribution from fallout, including plutonium, be ruled out?

September 15, 1997
Davis, CA

The doses to people from the SNAP-9A burnup of 17,000 Ci of Pu-238 can be
estimated at a few tenths of one mrem per year effective dose equivalent
(primarily to skeleton). It is a mistake to argue that no effects have been
observed, since we cannot prove a negative. 

Rather, since we all get about 1 mrem per day from background radiation,
there is no known or expected risk associated with an addition < 1 mrem per
year. If extra doses of the order of natural background posed significant
risks, we would have to evacuate Colorado. So, the main arguments for lack
of effects or risk should be based on dosimetry.

Actually, although Colorado residents are among the most irradiated
Americans, they enjoy one of the lowest cancer incidence of all the States.
Only New Mexico, Hawaii, and Utah are lower.

By the way, the District of Columbia has a higher cancer incidence than all
of the States. What does this tell us about exposure to governmental
environments?

Otto
		*****************************************************
		Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
                [President, Health Physics Society, 1997-1998]
		Institute of Toxicology & Environmental Health (ITEH)
		     (Street address: Old Davis Road)
		University of California, Davis, CA 95616
		Phone: 916-752-7754     FAX: 916-758-6140
		E-Mail: ograabe@ucdavis.edu
		******************************************************