In two previous posts, I wrote about the path I had gotten on, back in 1995, to shut down a research reactor at the Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island. The reactor, called a High Flux Beam Reactor, or HFBR, had its operations suspended and was eventually shut down, in 1999, after an investigation established that tritium had leaked from spent fuel pools and had contaminated ground water within and beyond the Brookhaven Lab site.
I met many people while working on the BNL issue, as well as other battles involving nuclear power. One of them was Randy Snell, a Long Island resident who raised his family near Brookhaven. Snell's daughter developed a rare form of cancer, rhabdomyosarcoma, which was found in several other children living near BNL. The total number of cases was fifteen times the national average. Snell, and others who were struggling with "rhabdo" (and other soft tissue cancers) near reactors or enrichment facilities, told me that exposure to low-level radiation is a factor in the disease.
Many activists working on the issue at the time referred to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, and its discussion of "bioaccumulation." Carson stated that chemical contamination, both alone and in conjunction with radiological contamination, would lead to extraordinary health hazards for human and animal populations. Long Island, particularly the Eastern region (Suffolk County) has been bombarded with applications of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides for many decades. Chemicals applied in farming (particularly potato farming), home lawn care, ball parks and golf courses have been driven down through a rather shallow "lense" of soil and have contaminated groundwater on Long Island with impunity. Breast cancer rates in Suffolk County are among the highest in the US.
After BNL was shut down, the group I was working with at the time, Standing for Truth About Radiation (STAR) Foundation folded. Contacts I had made while with STAR led me to the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP) and my association with Dr. Jay Gould, Dr. Ernest Sternglass and Joe Mangano, who is the current Executive Director of RPHP. While RPHP introduced me to debates regarding alternative energy and the dangers posed by utility reactors all over the US, RPHP's focus was on Millstone in Connecticut, on Indian Point in Buchanan, New York and, most intently, on the Oyster Creek Reactor in Tom's River, New Jersey.
RPHP's assertion is clear and is not new information. There are no safe levels of exposure to the byproducts created by the generation of reactors currently in use. RPHP has dedicated much of their work to promulgating the research of Dr. Ernest Sternglass, whose seemingly innocuously titled research into strontium 90 deposits in children's primary teeth actually helped influence John F. Kennedy's test ban decision in 1963. The "Tooth Fairy Project" supports a simple idea. Strontium 90, emitted by conventional utility reactors, mimics calcium in the body and is termed "bone-seeking." It deposits itself in the bones and marrow, after the larger amount of food-ingested strontium 90 is excreted by the body. In the developing fetuses of pregnant women, strontium 90 (again, mimicking calcium) is deposited in the teeth. Once in the teeth, it decays into a "daughter element", yttrium, the element that researchers like Stenglass look for as the marker for elevated exposure to radiation.
Sternglass came to this research after he familiarized himself with the work of Dr. Alice Stewart, a British epidemiologist who had studied the effects of radiation on children from X-rays. Later in her career, Stewart worked on a study of the Hanford plutonium production site in Washington state. Some of the original and most significant work in this field was done by Dr. Louise Z. Reiss, who oversaw the 1958 study, The St. Louis Baby Tooth Survey. The St. Louis survey found that traces of radioactive elements in new born children had risen 100 fold during the 1950's, which coincided with the most active period of above ground testing of atomic weapons. When the testing either ceased or was curtailed, levels of radioactive material in the primary teeth of children were found to have fallen.
Levels of radiation, as detected in children's teeth, fell after above ground testing ended. Then, according to Sternglass, they spiked again in direct relation to the growth of nuclear reactors as increased sources of power at public utilities.
In my next posts, I will address the work by Sternglass and others to apply strontium 90 research to the advent of utility reactors. Also, I will cover criticism of Sternglass' work, discussion on this site of "new generation" thorium reactors, the travails of workers at enrichment plants like Oak Ridge, Tennessee and Piketon, Ohio, the political legacy of certain New Jersey officials (Democrat and Republican) as pertains to the Oyster Creek reactor, and the great, looming issue of nuclear waste management as symbolized by the heartbreaking tragedy of Hanford.
Loading comments… 
Nuke = proliferat
"Clean" and too cheap to meter. we remember your nukes industry lies.
The nukes power industry grow out of the bomb industry. That's why the Uranium once through cycle was adopted: it makes the best bomb material.
Nuke power industry has inherited all of the bad habits of the nuclear bomb projects: secrecy, deception, disregard for the safety of civilians, and a war desperatio
There are no Thorium reactors, it's another bait and switch.
Theoretica
Nuke power is insane.
Readers reviewing this topic will find the above unsubstant
Tooth Fairy Project has no scientific value. Nuclear power plants do not emit detectable amounts of strontium-
He buries himself further with tritium leaks which the Green clowns make a big fuss about, but never realize how trivial they are when put in perspectiv
For years his finding have been repudiated as being "invalid, irresponsi
Official and Prestigiou
Pittsburgh about 1980
Pennsylvan
--made up of 8 distinguis
Statement by all past presidents of Health Physics Society
National Academy of Sciences BEIR Committee
State officials (in public statements
Virginia, Illinois, New York, and Michigan
National Cancer Institute
Environmen
U.S. Public Health Service
U.S. Bureau of Radiologic
American Academy of Pediatrics
Am. Journal of Public Health Editorial
NATURE editorial
Statements by anti-nucle
Bernard L. Cohen
Physics Dept.
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh
Tel: (412)624-9
Fax: (412)624-9
e-mail: blc+@pitt.
http://www
Labeling these substancel
However, little research is no knowledgea
"Green spam" fits.
I want you to take the existing nuclear waste. No? why not?
wind is cheaper than nukes and completely clean.
Let's all pray that Mr. Baldwin stays in acting where he clearly knows what he is doing.
This topic contains many cogent comments about how to frame a coherent energy policy that includes solar, wind, wave, geothermal
en.wikiped
for potential future developmen
Meanwhile, (and I've been watching this now for 40 years) the consensus on "Peak Oil" seems to have dropped to 10 years or less. So, even if syn and biofuels become vogue, the price curves may eventually intersect.
BTW, I don't believe the real-life version of Peak Oil will be left/right symmetric like the old Hubbert Curve. But the environmen
The cleaner sensical option is natural gas conversion
So, either PV gets really cheap, FAST, or it's onto thorium.
www.scienc
seekingalp
en.wikiped
en.wikiped
www.netl.d
www.mnfors
en.wikiped
dieoff.org
www.peakoi
en.wikiped
en.wikiped
en.wikiped
So there is no logical prospect for photovolta
So our only viable option for a bridge to green energy technologi
Fanned in return.
So instead I will fave you.
Alec Baldwin should stick to acting. It's what he knows. Research, reputable sources, forming a logical (versus emotional) theses, he doesn't know.
This topic contains ample references to refute Mr. Baldwin's claims several times over.
The most concerning part of this topic is that Mr. Baldwin may actually believe his writing. That is a reflection of American culture's rejection of science and mathematic
I think he is smart enough to get it, but first he has to get over his ego long enough to accept teaching, and then he needs to have good teacher(s) on the topics of logic, rhetoric, stats, and risk management
Agreed that he is not anywhere near where he needs to be on this.
http://www
"Insurance requiremen
A customer in the Northeast U.S. wished to install a 3 kW PV system and was told the utility required $250,000 of commercial
A customer in the Southeast U.S. installed a 9.3 kW PV system and was required by the utility to carry a $1 million liability insurance policy. The premium for this policy was $6,252 per year, more than four times the value of the energy produced annually by the system.
When a Pacific Northwest state implemente
Insurance costs can be a substantia
Thanks for the tip. This is something we need to look into.
This is very similar to what most railroads now do if your property is on the other side of the tracks, and your driveway needs to cross their tracks for access to that property.
First, they grandfathe
who would have ever thought that fossil fuel utility companies might actually act to greedily protect their pig troughs by actively discouragi
Thorium is touted as the new, clean, unleaded version of nuclear power, and there is some evidence to suggest it could be. Back when I was in grade school, there was a guy whose mother always packed him awful healthy lunches. Now I eat multi-grai
In other words, he will rely on an appeal to misplaced authority (his own) to string together lots of logically inconsiste
This forum shows that most people are reasonable and educated. They know how to look behind the curtain and see the pull rods, buttons, smoke, and mirrors.
So, I just went to that solarinc site and tried their leasing costs widgit, based on my old house and neighborho
We have not found a leasing option that makes any sense. Accepting a lease agreement means letting the system provider use your roof to collect all the revenue from state and federal subsidies and charge you for the pleasure. So you get no revenue and a net electricit
Just curious... looked into it a bit here(NY), but last time I did it was far from cost effective. Also in a bit of a snowbelt in upstate so can't really see myself dragging my butt up onto the roof a dozen times a winter to clear off the panels.
FANNED!
Global Solar-Pane
"The company’s thin-film modules use cadmium telluride to convert sunlight into electricit
http://min
1gW worth of thin solar PV uses a bit over 93 metric tons of Tellurium.
http://en.
"The disposal and long term safety of cadmium telluride is a known issue in the large scale commercial
Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) are nominating Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) for inclusion in the National Toxicology Program (NTP). This nomination is strongly supported by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and First Solar Inc. The material has the potential for widespread applicatio
The toxicity is not solely due to the cadmium content. One study found that the highly reactive surface of cadmium telluride quantum dots triggers extensive reactive oxygen damage to the cell membrane, mitochondr
http://www
http://www
page 45
Thus if we were stupid enough to get all our electricit
we can expect 20,000 TMI/Cherno
Solar Wind and Waste Bio fuels are cleaner, safer, ready, cheaper and forever.
Nuke won't fly airplanes, or long haul trucks. But waste bio Fuels already have.
Nukes have lead to several new members of the nuke clubs, bringing a nuclear exchange all that much closer, and a resultant nuclear holocaust close too.
Nukes are a death wish.
You are only 3 orders of magnitude off. Have you ever thought of checking more than one source for confirmati
http://en.
The worldwide average background dose for a human being is about 2.4 millisieve
http://en.
"The highest levels of natural background radiation recorded in the world till date is from areas around Ramsar, particular
http://www
"Children living near overhead power lines may have an increased risk of leukemia but the associatio
Comparing the children who had cancer with a control group of 29,000 children without cancer but who lived in comparable districts, found that children whose birth address was within 200 metres of an overhead power line had a 70% increased risk of leukemia. Children living 200 to 600 m away from power lines had a 20% increased risk.
"To put these results in perspectiv
Nuclear power will always be controlled by government
Solar PV fits in better with the tea party everybody for themselves attitude, yet it is still not truely distribute
Hasn't anyone got a comment on you the homeowner assuming the quite substantia
Anyone care to make their case for why distributi
20k Is a big purchase, though, so do your homework.
right now the grid connects laws regulation and rules , the insurance cots, etc... all vary tremendous
try this search: http://www
Most of the anti-nucle
Why did I expect that anyone would actually notice the vast improvemen
Perhaps, because I recognize the many shortcomin
Certainly, I did not expect the constant red herring diversions toward tiny increases in the probabilit
http://www
If you haven't already done so.
Nobody, has posted a single response as to what they think the energy source will be in the next century, or anytime after fossil sources actually run out. If not nuclear, what will it be?
Nobody has yet posted a single response with any realistic plan to add 1 Gigawatt per day can be added to our grid, for the next 30 years, as will be required to keep up with population growth.
I don't say solar won't be needed, or that biochar won't be needed, or that wind won't be used. I am just saying that nuclear power's great power density will be needed as well for baseload, if we are to have any chance at replacing coal.
It is only the anti-nuke crowd that says they can do it alone without nuclear power, while telling us to nevermind the details as to how they will actually do it, as if it were obvious.
Only thing I can say is don't give up hope. There are many reasonable people here... even among the anti-nuke crowd, though I suspect their voices are often lost among the ranters.
Af far as future power sources go LFTR certainly has a ton of potential, as do many other forms of nuclear, gas cooled pebble bed reactors(P
Renewables certainly have a place, especially as technology improves and costs come down. If the technology continues at current rates I suspect we could cover another 20-30% of our needs using a combinatio
And of course whatever remains will have to be covered by Coal/Gas and biofuels..
The next century... Fusion(hop
Dr. Chu, Dr, Peterson, and others have formed some kind of panel to decide this policy as we speak.
Of all the panel members, Dr. Peterson is the only one I know of for sure, that has even heard of the LFTR. Berkley is home to the Pebble Bed design, possibly giving it the leg up with Dr. Chu.
Interestin
As an interium design, I consider it a step forward, but not as far forward as could be possible here. Is the Pebble Bed design safer than today's reactors? Can it recycle some of our existing wastes? Yes. Does it get us to 99% or better fuel burnup? No.
Will it probably be Dr. Chu's choice? The jury is out.
Would you prefer the Pebble Bed, or the LFTR? Why?
Do you consider the Pebble Bed, more shovel ready? Why?
Thanks for the encouragem
Gas wells here in the Barnett Shale (only 8000ft deep) are now being implicated in small earthquake
But, how about we only deploy "sealed" LFTR units to other countries? It gives us 30 more years to figure something better out.
http://hom
"There are no technical obstacles for the deployment of a 'sealed' MSR that operates with no chemical processing
"If this strategy of attempting to remove very long term fission product buildups in the salt is pursued, the salt can continue service in another reactor after the first MSR has reached the end of its life. This would not only greatly reduce decommisio
It will create a new 1000 times deadly radioactiv
You already promised "Clean" and safe,
and we have several new nuclear bomb club members,
history's deadliest waste problem,
And handy city kill terrorist targets.
Green energy is cheaper faster, safer, cleaner and forever.
Couldn't agree more. I remember what that felt like. (It was recent.)
I was shocked at the level of discourse that some employ to make their points, both because they were illogical and because they were laced with personal invective.
American capacity for civility, research, logic, and pride in excellence have all plunged into an abyss of indifferen
The evils of 1950s conformity are clearly displayed in the movie "Dead Poets' Society." But America has gone far to the opposite extreme - an absorbed selfishnes
We are rotting from within.
There is a post in this topic that states the Nuclear Regulatory Commission exposure limits for non-nuclea
Envrionmen
Medical: ..........