>Bad Science and the Tooth Fairy Project (nuclear power)

        This perennial theme since the late 1960s is, I fear, not much
clarified by SMS's post.
I know nothing about the movie figures mentioned, and I doubt they matter
much.  But the logic offered by SMS is inconclusive.


>  Categorically, there is no
>proof whatsoever linking them as cause and effect.  In the 1970's University
>of Pittsburgh Professor Ernest Sternglass (radiology) made the same charge
>and gave statistical correlation galore showing that in each and every
>instance where a plant was built, the incidence of infant mortality and
>disease rose.  I was a health policy consultant in the Governor's Office and
>actively involved in investigating the issue.  Eventually the state convened
>a blue ribbon scientific panel to study the issue.  It turns out that
>correlation is not causality (as every graduate student should well know) and
>that in each and every case, the sociological and economic groupings of the
>communities began to drastically change when 10's of thousands of migrant
>workers relocated in the areas to gain employment - and the infant mortality
>rates of the emigrating groups corresponded with the changes that Sternglass
>pointed to.  Additionally, most plants are built near natural watersheds and
>sources that are areas of greatest natural radiation - that accounts for
>clusters of increases in dread diseases of all kinds in the areas.

        Well I too have been 'actively involved in investigating the
issue', on & off for 3 decades, and I haven't seen the proof of this last
statement.  Ref(s) please!

        It is surprisingly hard for many people to understand the large
scope in the modern world for damage which is both widespread, large in
number of victims, and also unprovable from epidemiology.
        SMS seems to suggest there's  NO  strontium-90 in children's teeth.
This is incorrect.  However, finding 90-Sr in teeth is of course a long way
from proving that it came from nuclear power stations or that it has
actually caused harm.
        On the effects of low-level ionizing radiation, I recommend John
Gofman's book.  I actually don't agree with him that the epidemiology
proves that no threshold exists for harm from low doses, but I do agree
that the threshold, if any, is at very low doses.

        I am puzzled at the dogmatic dismissive tone, without a single
authority, adopted by SMS.  I for one would not venture into this
controversy without citing any authority.


R


-
Robt Mann
P O Box 28878   Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
                (9) 524 2949