[ RadSafe ] Re: No suggestion to change regulatory limits
crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Tue Mar 7 16:43:58 CST 2006
I believe one of the purposes for performing and
documenting hormesis studies is to influence the
regulatory community to elevate regulatory limits.
The idea being that higher regulatory limits would
require less expenditures on ALARA programs and
savings to the utilities using nuclear power and the
public. Elevated regulatory limits would also lead to
the construction of new nuclear power plants as there
would be reduced public opposition to them.
--- parthasarathy k s <ksparth at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Dear John,
> Nobody proposed any change in regulatory limits.
> The radiobiological evidence gives me confidence so
> that I shall not lose sleep over exposures of a few
> millisieverts.(Not withstanding genomic instability,
> bystander effects etc). The quibling over limits as
> low as 0.15 mSv or 0.25 mSv for the members of the
> public from waste storage facilities may be
> laughable. But when I look at the cost evaluation
> reported by GAO, I believe that all stakeholders
> including specialists must attempt to arrive at
> pragmatic limits.
> Probably refined radiobiological data give
> opportunity to spend money unwisely!
> John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dr. Parthasarathy, et.al.,
> So, after all of the reading of papers, reviews and
> rebuttals, what do you think will come of all this
> work? Has anyone seen any indication that regulatroy
> limits will be changed?
> P.S. Jim, I found the two papers you mentioned in
> Radio. Environ. Biophys. and will read them later
"It is not the job of public-affairs officers to alter, filter or
adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA's technical
MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN, NASA administrator.
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the RadSafe