RE: Tooth Fairy Project in G&M

["Heinmiller, Bruce" <heinmillerb@aecl.ca>]

The Globe and Mail touts Michael Downey as a Toronto writer specializing in
science.  In this single article alone, this specialist has managed to:
-- confuse elements with nuclides;
-- confuse synergism of source agents with their relative spatial proximity;
-- confuse radiation with radioactive material;
-- confuse radionuclides with radiated [sic] atoms;
-- confuse markers of intake with putative effects in distant tissues; and,
-- confuse compensation claims with reactor health study results.

This is not to mention the ridiculous unsubstantiated claims, the quoting in
the present tense someone who has been deceased for many years, and the
misquoting a half-life.

My favourite is this one:  "While some radiation existed [prior to the
nuclear age], only radionuclides or radiated [sic] atoms can be created via
atomic fission."  As written, this means that fission produces, for example,
no stable nuclides, which, aside from being irrelevant, is, of course,
incorrect.  I'm only guessing from the context that what he meant to write
is that radionuclides can only be created by fission.  That is to say, none
by fusion, none by decay of other nuclides, none by activation, and none by
a myriad of other nuclear reactions.

I don't think this specialist is a good candidate to explain carbon dating,
but if he were to improve his writing skills, The Globe and Mail might want
to give him serious consideration for writing it's daily astrology column.

Bruce Heinmiller CHP
heinmillerb@aecl.ca

> ----------
> From: 	Franta, Jaroslav[SMTP:frantaj@aecl.ca]
> Reply To: 	radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Sent: 	Thursday, December 02, 1999 10:56 AM
> To: 	Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: 	FW: Tooth Fairy Project in G&M
> 
> 
> 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
> 
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html