NuclearLou wrote:

---

Wouldn't it be nice to get something other than platitudes and double speak from the Niagara County Health Department? What about some straight answers?  Wouldn't it be nice to actually know what the Niagara County Health Department is and isn't capable of testing for themselves? What is the jurisdiction of the Niagara COunty Health Department? Does anyone here know? No, not guesses but an actual list of what they can "test" for and what they're responsible for--and to whom do they answer to? It doesn't look like they answered to a legislator (Glenn Aronow).  Does Niagara County even have a laboratory? What capablities? Etc.. LR

---

What is the jurisdiction of the Niagara County Health Department? They can inspect food service establishments. That requires temperature readings does that qualify as a test? They can inspect pools, for what I don't know. They can take tape samples, but only if asked. They can use a hand held air monitor, but it only registers nuisance odors. They have to send out for equipment to take real air samples. But again they can only test for nuisance odors if they are asked. They can mail you fliers if you have a problem, thats helpful if it isn't something that requires a fast response. Oh and they can enforce the smoking ban.

So to sum it up, they have jurisdiction over food service establishments, pools and smokers. Does that help?

 

NuclearLou wrote:

---

Mike: Do you still have relatives that live in the Lewiston-Porter-Youngstown area and are on the water supply, correct? Then, they should all have RO filters on their water systems. I'm not sure if RO removes Pu. I do know that they remove certain radioactive materials from the water supply. If they don't have a filter then they are taking a dose internally from whatever is in the tap water. Plutonium is also known to be in the raw water of the river at Youngstown, NY. One thing is for sure, you would be shocked to see the amount of radioactive materials that accumulate on the filters! I certainly hope that your family has a home water filter. I also hope that every family in the area can afford one. Interestingly, once the filter is used, what happens to the cartridge, membrane, etc.  It just goes into a regular landfill. Odd, isn't it? The filter eventually breaks down in the landfill and any rad. material gets released once again into the environment through ground water contamination, soil contamination and into the air. Speaking of air, I would also strongly suggest the use of an in-home HEPA air filter to filter out some of the air-borne alpha particles attached to dust. With all the soils being moved around L-P-Y-R, I'd be cautious of any dust or dirt on the roads...or in the air. ONE molecule is all it takes to cause a cancer, or, just kill you eventually by any number of health problems associated with being exposed to these materials--Which are ALL AROUND US. That's ONE exposure. Now, add up all the chronic exposures that we are forced to take unknowingly and you will see why Roswell Park Cancer Institute is always in the expansion mode. I will clearly state this: There is no worse exposure to radioactives than internally via drinking water. Good health to those who can afford it, Lou Ricciuti  

---

i have recomended reverse osmosis water filters to anyone who would listen , it is their choice , they are grownups .       cost wise i dont see $300 as being prohibative and if enough individuals make the used filters availible for testing once a year when they are to be replaced , potential problems could be identified as they develop .       either of  my dear departed great grandmothers could have installed the system with one arm tied behind their backs,  it is supposed to be installed under the kitchen sink , but i put mine in the basement under the kitchen because it is just easier to get to for maintanance .   

one sticking point with the water testing seems to be the property owner worry about dimished property values as the result of a "positve test"  BUT with the centralized water system it is not a problem , a positive test does not condemn the land or house of the property owner , it just shows a problem in the centralized water system somewhere up the line ,  property owners should be very motivated to have their filters tested so that solutions can be implemented if and when contaimination of any form harmfull to health  is found in the filters in the homes and businesses    ....     especialy food selling businesses ....  

the reverse osmosis filter systems only filter a small percentage of the total water a home uses , just the drinking & cooking water ,  a negative test result in the filters does not mean that no contamination is present in the water supply to that home .....    more so when the tap to the reverse osmosis system is installed in the top of the supply source pipe ,some  sediment and heavier particles will tend to pass under the port with the rest of the flow of water ..... which is good for the homeowner / water drinker , but bad for testing purposes .

"What is the jurisdiction of the Niagara COunty Health Department? Does anyone here know? No, not guesses but an actual list of what they can "test" for and what they're responsible for--and to whom do they answer to? It doesn't look like they answered to a legislator (Glenn Aronow).  Does Niagara County even have a laboratory? What capablities? Etc.."

This mornings news reported a smoking ban violation. Way to go NCHD, how about enforcing all of the other public safety laws?

i guess i am on a broken income as it fluctuates with the amount of cars i fix .     we all make choices , i chose to spend some of my hard earned pennies on a water filter system .  by doing that i cant spend that $300 on something else .     my choice , kinda as my wife would have attempted to kick my butt had i not made that particular choice .

we have sodium in the municipal water here , the reverse osmosis filter allegedly removes most or all of that - later  by mistake we found out about all the other things in our water , best $300 i ever spent .

   red shoes must really be red moccasins .

 

shughes wrote:

---

"red shoes must really be red moccasins" Redshoe flows much better the redmoccassins, but I try to stay out of the water. I think NW is a good example of many people here in Niagara County, they just don't have $300. Maybe the healh department should spend it's grant money on filters for people who can't afford them.  They are cliaming that grant under the umbrella of a health project. I think it would be money well spent.

---

i think if it can be shown that there is a need for a water filter system for any one residence in a municipal water system with a common source then all of the residences in that system would require the same type of filters to solve the same problem .... imho .

anyway today http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=auS7vo87AOoU&refer=europe#    someone has shown an increase in cancer incedence of all types related to exposure to ionising radiation -  and again http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062900825.html

so if the elevated "background levels " known to be present at the lewport school buildings exceed the posted levels in these two publications -     i think that may just be a significant thing .

 

Anonymous wrote:

---

WASHINGTON -- The preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even very low doses of radiation pose a risk of cancer or other health problems and there is no threshold below which exposure can be viewed as harmless, a panel of prominent scientists concluded Wednesday. The finding by the National Academy of Sciences panel is viewed as critical because it addresses radiation amounts commonly used in medical treatment and is likely also to influence radiation levels the government will allow at abandoned nuclear sites. Taken from" MOTM"good find.So people move the schools.SAVE THE CHILDREN..

---

so as i read this i see , long term exposure to low level ionizing radiation in excess of 100 msverts in five years  will result in 1 to 2 percent of the test group population dieing of cancer before their time ;        and  .19 percent will die of luekemia ?  

how long is kindergarten through the senior year of high school .  13 years .  not counting summer vacations 13 x 2 months = 26 months = 2 years .    13 - 2 = 11 years .   not counting summer school or sports practice or ...     dont get crazy ,  leave it at 11 years . about 2x 5 years.

so what is the background level at the lewport school district buildings ? in msverts ? does it exceed or equal a 100 milliseverts dose to the students / faculty ? in five years  ?  i dont have the answer to that question ,    maybe i should ask my dear departed mother .   a former teacher at the lewport school campus , who recently died of a glioblastoma multiforme brain tumor .

           without hystrionics or accusations or name calling , there must be a quick easy way to answer this question . it is probobly already answered and i just dont know about it .

////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

June 29 (Bloomberg) -- People who work in the nuclear industry and receive low doses of ionizing radiation have a slightly increased risk of dying from cancer, according to the largest study ever conducted and published online today in the British Medical Journal.

Exposure to 100 millisieverts increases the risk of dying from all types of cancer except leukemia by 10 percent and by 19 percent from leukemia, excluding a slow progressive form of the disease, said researchers from a World Health Organization research group in Lyon, France.

One to 2 percent of cancer deaths among people who work in the nuclear industry may have been caused by low doses of radiation, the researchers found. Still, most of the radiation was received in the early years of the nuclear industry, when protection standards were less stringent than today, they said.

``Only a small proportion of cancer deaths would be expected to occur from low-dose chronic exposures to X- and gamma radiation among current nuclear workers and in the general population,'' said lead researcher Elisabeth Cardis of the Radiation Group at the International Agency for Research on Cancer in an e-mailed statement.

The results are consistent with current protection standards, which are based on an extrapolation of data from survivors of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in August 1945 to the general population and radiation workers. Survivors of the Hiroshima bomb got high levels of radiation over a short period, unlike workers in the nuclear industry, who get low levels over a longer term.

407,391 Workers

The researchers studied data from 407,391 nuclear industry workers in 15 countries for an average 13 years and monitored external radiation exposure. The subjects worked at least one year primarily in a nuclear power production facility, as well as in research, waste management or the production of nuclear fuel, isotopes or weapons.

As cancer is a disease that may develop years after being triggered, the researchers excluded radiation doses that were received too recently to have an influence on the risk of cancer. [which may skew the test results downward ]

Current radiation protection recommendations are to limit occupational doses to 100 millisieverts over five years and the annual dose to the public to 1 millisievert, a unit used to describe radiation absorption by the body.

The WHO study was sponsored by institutions including the European Union, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the Japanese Institute for Radiation Epidemiology.

 ////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\

 

The child of my friends Alexandra and Peter Bennett, Patrick, the 12 year-one-month-and 29 day year old only child--passed away last night from a Glioblastoma brain tumor. 

-- Edited by NuclearLou at 02:33, 2005-06-30

NuclearLou wrote:

---

The child of my friends Alexandra and Peter Bennett, Patrick, the 12 year-one-month-and 29 day year old only child--passed away last night from a Glioblastoma brain tumor.  -- Edited by NuclearLou at 02:33, 2005-06-30

---

that is horrible , my mom told me a few times as she was dying that it was a horrible way to die , i participated  but there was nothing anyone could do ,     your freinds child held on longer than she did after diagnoses .    there are no words .  none .   dont tell that to your freinds .

as useless as it sounds,  please convey my sympathy .     he is in a better place , good for him .   His parents will see him again .

   how many more need to do this .     one to two percent is 1 or 2 out of a hundred , what was the senior class size in 2005 ?

        if the tests are on record , how is the conversion done ?

We are all in agreement on one thing!So let me throw this to the wolves,"How about we all go to the next town board meeting for town of Lewiston"Ask the questions that need to be asked.Bring the paper work that needs to be brought.Notify Ms. Clinton's office before we go.Scott in toe should be help.Lou at the head.Have at this idea..

shughes wrote:

---

Anonymous wrote: We are all in agreement on one thing!So let me throw this to the wolves,"How about we all go to the next town board meeting for town of Lewiston"Ask the questions that need to be asked.Bring the paper work that needs to be brought.Notify Ms. Clinton's office before we go.Scott in toe should be help.Lou at the head.Have at this idea.. Sorry anon, but I don't think I can attend. I have a firm rule that I don't meet anyone I can't identify.

---

There no longer anon.How about now?

Good,Now all as I have to do is find out when the next one is.Anymore takers?Scott,nuclear lou,Motm.