Reply #17: The Radiation and Public Health project collects baby teeth and compares exposure [View All]

They have found much higher rates downwind and downstream (especially near bodies of water like Long Island Sound and others in Florida) and compared them wityh the general public. Epidemiological studies have been conducted showing the related increase in cancers (just as in many of the European studies) more closely to the nuke plants. Because there is no precise "chemical marker" that can exactly identify a specific source of, say, Strontium 90, the population studies and baby teeth studies are critical (strontium 90 mimics calcium and locks into the baby teeth when absorbed by the child in utero meaning the mother has been exposed as well - by doing an analysis of the teeth using radiochemistry, they can establish how much strontium 90 is in the teeth and by comparing the location of the donor they can get a better determination of the actual likely source. BUT like BIG Tobacco with cigarettes, the industry claims over and over again "it ain't OUR radiation that's giving you THIS cancer" and because the cancers themselves and the radiation don't have a precise signature the ONLY way to extrapolate the source is through studies like this. The RPHP has so far concluded that the source is correlative to the nuke plants BECAUSE the amount of exposure found is higher the closer one is to the nuke plant as a child in utero or as the teeth are developing..

I linked one here on childhood leukemia in another thread on France's nuclear program and cancer rates:
http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/43

the studies and papers etc can be found at www.radiation.org.

Since the Industry and pronuke NRC doesn't conduct these studies nonprofits struggle to get them done with few resources but their work is eye opening.

I have the utmost respect for the RPHP's work

which can be found at

www.radiation.org