FW: Tooth Fairy Project in G&M

["Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj@aecl.ca>]

This e-mail from a colleague (forwarded with his permission) may be of
interest to some Radsafers....
....comments are invited.

thanks,
Jaro
frantaj@aecl.ca
> ----------
> From: 	Brown, Morgan
> Sent: 	Thursday, December 02, 1999 10:04 AM
> Subject: 	Tooth Fairy Project
> 
> Here's a negative article in todays G&M. ["Globe and Mail," a Canadian
> newspaper with nation-wide coverage]  Amongst other things, author Downey
> (a science writer who should research things a little better) calls AECL
> "Atomic Energy Commission".  Hmmm, when did the AEC get transformed into
> the USNRC and DoE?  Early 1970's?
> 
> And what about "Radiation also works its questionable magic on some
> elements found naturally in the environment. After a brush with radiation,
> about 300 previously innocent chemicals take on radioactive forms that
> before 1943 were found only in trace quantities here and there in isolated
> places."  This makes it sound as if one just has to bring substances (what
> on earth is an "innocent chemical"?) near another radioactive substance
> (as opposed to irradiating them with neutrons).
> 
> "Two nuclear workers at a research plant in Chalk River, Ont., would
> disagree -- if they could. In 1981, they received full pensions as a
> result of getting cancer caused by radiation exposure. One pension went
> immediately to the widow of one of the workers and other claims soon
> followed."  What was this about?
> 
> "where it can be left to decay for 240,000 years, the half-life of
> plutonium."  (out by a factor of 10)
> 
> "(AECL) spokesman Hal Tracy says the nuclear industry in Canada now
> accepts the theory that there is no safe threshold limit for radiation
> exposure. Any dose, no matter how small, has the potential to cause harm
> and eventually there will be evidence of this harm, he says."  I'll leave
> that to [others] !
> <snip>
[usual disclaimers]
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> 
> The fallout factor
> Long after it should have begun to fade away, one of
> the worst byproducts of the atomic age continues
> to show up in our teeth, bones and tissue in
> alarming amounts. And no one really knows why. 
> MICHAEL DOWNEY
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> Thursday, December 2, 1999 
> Toronto -- Strontium 90, the atomic-age horror of 40 years ago, is still
> with us -- deep within us. An element unknown to science until spawned by
> the first nuclear-weapons tests, Sr90 continues to be found in our very
> bones. Suddenly, children born 30 years after the last bomb exploded in
> the atmosphere are exhibiting unexpectedly significant amounts of Sr90.
> Back in the 1950s, its presence in baby teeth was blamed for a surge in
> cancer among children, and public pressure led in 1963 to then U.S.
> president John F. Kennedy's decision to sign a nuclear test-ban treaty
> with the Soviet Union.
> A byproduct of nuclear fission, Sr90 is a marker for radiation poisoning
> that damages DNA much more quickly, even before birth, than any
> environmental pollutants. Nuclear particles remain lodged -- often for
> life -- in human tissues, where they continue to give off radiation and
> result in cancer, birth defects and premature aging.
> And to make matters worse, industrial chemicals in water or milk are
> doubly carcinogenic when in contact with Sr90.
> Where all this new radiation comes from is a matter of debate.
> For scientists like Dr. Jay Gould of the U.S. Radiation and Public Health
> Project, there are only two possibilities: accidents of the kind that
> damaged the nuclear power plant at Three Mile Island, Pa., in 1976, or
> radiation escaping from properly functioning facilities. Evidence, he
> says, comes from data released by the U.S. Department of Energy that shows
> a decline in the amount of Sr90 in adult bone and diet from 1964 to 1970
> -- after above-ground bomb testing ended.
> "The amount declined on average by 16 per cent each year," he says. "If
> this decline had continued, there would be only trace amounts of Sr90 in
> baby teeth today." Amounts should be barely measurable -- about .3 or .4
> picocuries per gram of calcium, he says. This would be in keeping with the
> half-life of radioactive material. In the case of Sr90 it is 29 years, or
> the time it takes for half its radioactive matter to decay.
> Instead, scientists found levels as high as 2 to 17 picocuries per gram of
> calcium, he says.
> "This could not possibly be attributed to past bomb tests."
> Dr. Gould, who served on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science
> Advisory Board under President Jimmy Carter, also says anyone living
> within 150 kilometres of a nuclear facility has a greater risk of breast
> or prostate cancer. Recent studies suggest people stand to suffer 20 times
> more cell damage than was suspected at the time safety standards were set
> in the mid-1950s.
> On the other hand, Dr. Murray Stewart, president and CEO of the Canadian
> Nuclear Association, says any increase in radiation is much more likely to
> be caused by previous above-ground testing. Radiation released from
> Canadian plants is "infinitesimally small," he says. "Studies have never
> shown any link between commercial reactors or commercial uranium to any
> incidence of cancer."
> Two nuclear workers at a research plant in Chalk River, Ont., would
> disagree -- if they could. In 1981, they received full pensions as a
> result of getting cancer caused by radiation exposure. One pension went
> immediately to the widow of one of the workers and other claims soon
> followed.
> Atomic Energy Commission (AECL) spokesman Hal Tracy says the nuclear
> industry in Canada now accepts the theory that there is no safe threshold
> limit for radiation exposure. Any dose, no matter how small, has the
> potential to cause harm and eventually there will be evidence of this
> harm, he says.
> Tell that to the nuclear neighbourhood. Fish near the Pickering nuclear
> plant on Lake Ontario, and at the Bruce site on Lake Huron, have been
> found to be radioactive -- likely caused by the tonnes of mildly
> radioactive water routinely flushed into the lakes. And Ontario Hydro
> admits that some apples and onions grown near its powerplants are up to
> 100 times more radioactive than "normal," yet are still well within
> official "safe" limits.
> In all, about 80 radioactive byproducts in some way manage to reach the
> air, soil, water, where they remain active and eventually enter our food.
> Radiation also works its questionable magic on some elements found
> naturally in the environment. After a brush with radiation, about 300
> previously innocent chemicals take on radioactive forms that before 1943
> were found only in trace quantities here and there in isolated places.
> Sr90 itself did not exist in nature prior to the nuclear age. While some
> radiation existed, only radionuclides or radiated atoms can be created via
> atomic fission.
> If all this is considered normal, then so is the problem of nuclear waste.
> When removed from the reactor core, it is about a million times more
> radioactive than when it was loaded. A freshly spent fuel bundle is
> reckoned to be so deadly that a person standing only a metre away would
> die of radiation poisoning within an hour.
> There is no antidote to its toxicity and never will be. Each year, we
> produce 100 tonnes of nuclear waste per plant and manage only to isolate
> the stuff some place where it can be left to decay for 240,000 years, the
> half-life of plutonium.
> The technique could hardly be described as safe. After all, the Egyptian
> pharaohs were supposed to be entombed forever, too. According to a 1991
> AECL workshop, the industry could never simply put waste out of mind. "We
> cannot think we have done a perfect job, seal it, and forget about it . .
> . Future generations must be able to repair the facility."
> None of this sounds very encouraging to Dr. Gould. His study group, also
> known as the Tooth Fairy project, has been measuring the presence of Sr90
> in the baby teeth of American children born some 20 years ago, and early
> results show levels to be "100 times higher than we expected."
> Some 1,500 teeth have been collected from parents who had kept the teeth
> as keepsakes. The collection includes 550 teeth from children born between
> 1979 and 1982. These teeth had the same level of Sr90 as that found in a
> similar study conducted in 1953, says Dr. Gould.
> Colleague Dr. Janet Sherman, a Virginia internal-medicine specialist and
> toxicologist, says the results are frightening.
> "We're finding that Sr90 levels in baby teeth of children born since 1990
> are reaching levels that were in existence during the above-ground testing
> years, which is very scary," she says.
> The finding is not entirely unprecedented. Tests on baby teeth in Germany
> after fallout from the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, Ukraine, in 1986
> showed a tenfold increase in Sr-90. Fallout also reached North America,
> says Dr. Gould. Radiation carried in wind patterns and released in
> rainfall caused profound effects upon birth weights and auto-immune
> functions, he says.
> For Dr. Gould, who next wants to test the teeth of Canadian children,
> Chernobyl and other similar accidents all point to responsibility for the
> continued presence of Sr90.
> For the moment, his Tooth Fairy project offers no solutions, only deeply
> disturbing questions. Long after it should have diminished in potency,
> Sr90 promises to be a terrifying threat well into the next century. 
> Michael Downey is a Toronto writer specializing in science.
> HOW STRONTIUM 90 STRIKES
> Strontium 90 and other radioactive material gets into vegetation,
> including grass and vegetables. If cows eat tainted grass, their milk
> picks up radioactive material which stays active for years.
> "The mother consumes milk, vegetables and cheese and the Sr90 goes up the
> food chain," says Dr. Janet Sherman of the Tooth Fairy Project. "These
> kids are getting it in utero [in the womb] . . . So if you're talking
> about healthy [nuclear] workers, they may not drink much milk. And they're
> already developed."
> Children are vulnerable in a way that adults are not. Radioactive
> particles can settle in any part of our bodies; but children knit Sr90
> into growing bones and teeth when their bodies mistake it for calcium. Dr.
> Sherman says children who exhibit high levels of Sr90 show a
> higher-than-normal rate of a rare form of bone cancer. Other effects can
> be delayed for years or generations.
> Radiation takes the form of high-energy rays and particles. Beta rays for
> example, are fast electrons that lose energy as they pass through our
> cells. The transferred energy disrupts chemical bonds; the strands of our
> DNA break. Improper rejoining of these DNA ends causes key sections of DNA
> to be lost. While some cells die, others -- forever changed -- become
> altered blueprints for mutated or cancerous cells.
> 
> 
> 
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html