[ RadSafe ] RE: IEER Memorandum on Tritium
jim_hoerner at hotmail.com
Wed Apr 19 19:44:56 CDT 2006
Before replying to the post below, let me say that I found the responses
from RadSafe to my post very interesting. Particulary the post about how to
pro-actively deal with the public perception of what "is safe". I took that
to heart. "It's safe because I would let my kids play there every day."
And the "safer than protected s3x" addition was pretty good too. :-) Thank
>Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:03:12 -0700
>From: Peter Ryge <pryge at rapiscansystems.com>
>Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: IEER Memorandum on Tritium
>To: radsafe at radlab.nl
>Where does EPA define safe as "zero known risk"? The phrase "zero known
>risk" on Google turns up only three links, one of which is Arjun Makhijani
>on IEER "quoting" EPA, and the others are in a totally different context.
>None of them is EPA.
The EPA does when they endorse LNT. No dose, no risk. They flat out admit
it. It is like Arjun said, the recommended goal for all radionuclides in
drinking water is zero. Because the best science in the world endorses this
view as sound. My paraphrasing; it's you smart people at RadSafe's job to
Here's a sample reference for the statement by the EPA...
'All MCLGs for radionuclides were proposed as zero pCi/L, based on a linear
no-threshold cancer risk model for ionizing radiation.'
Makes me wonder if it can really be good for health for us meager humans to
target reducing to zero so many water 'impurities" intentionally added by
Mother Nature? Sounds like great potential for an epidemiological study,
PS: I propose the over-paid RadSafe moderator take action against anyone
who posts off-topic messages suggesting he take action against anyone.
Except me, of course. :-)
Hold the door for the stranger behind you. When the driver in the adjacent
lane signals to get over, slow down. Smile and say "hi" to the folks you
pass on the sidewalk. Give blood. Volunteer.
More information about the RadSafe