[ RadSafe ] Re:Public apprehension and regulatory restrictions

[jjcohen at prodigy.net]

Is stringent regulatory restriction a reflection of the degree of public
fears, or is it more a contributing factor to greater apprehension? Has
there ever been a penalty for overregulating? How could elevated regulatory
limits benefit the regulators?-----
Just a few questions to ponder over the weekend-----   Jerry Cohen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
To: "parthasarathy k s" <ksparth at yahoo.co.uk>; "Muckerheide, James"
<jimm at WPI.EDU>; "Richard L. Hess" <lists at richardhess.com>;
<radsafe at radlab.nl>
Cc: <RuthWeiner at aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 2:43 PM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: No suggestion to change regulatory limits


> Dr. Parthasarathy,
> 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!
> >
> >   Regards
> >   Parthasarathy
> >
> > 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
> > this
> > week.
> >
> >
>
> +++++++++++++++++++
> "It is not the job of public-affairs officers to alter, filter or
> adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA's technical
> staff."
> MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN, NASA administrator.
>
> -- John
> 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
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/