RE: Our own best friends!

["Tsurikov, Nick" <nick.tsurikov@iluka.com>]

Dear Al,

*	'Nuclear et al.' industry has to comply with many thresholds
(clearance levels, authorised release levels, etc), which limit potential
exposure to employees, members of the public and the environment.
*	These thresholds are exceeded on the daily basis and, sometimes by
the order of magnitude, by 'non-nuclear' industries, such as phosphate, oil
and gas, mineral processing in general and many others.
*	There are many areas in the world where natural background radiation
levels significantly exceed 'nuclear industry limits' (Brazil, Iran, India,
Sri Lanka and China).  

So, instead of acknowledging that some of 'threshold' limits are absurd
(like there is no equipment in existence to measure such amounts of an
isotope in soils, whatever...) and relaxing the limits, 'regulatory
authorities' happily taking on board more and more.  Is it about jobs again?

"Exemption in 10 CFR Part 40 for Materials less than 0.05 Percent Source
Materials - Options and Other Issues Concerning the Control of Source
Material", 
NRC memorandum SECY-99-259:
Based on the extensive list of minerals containing uranium and thorium
presented in NCRP Report No. 118, "Radiation Protection in the Mineral
Extraction Industry," the Commission could conceivably regulate much of the
mineral extraction industry in the United States.

Another thing - did you see NUREG-1717 from the NRC...?  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, the question I wanted to ask for some time now: - Dear Radsafers, could
somebody please tell me what is going on? 

Three options (from which the second one is the one currently being
followed, I think):

1.	Let's regulate everything.  I believe I could have fun here, looking
across the Pacific on the country where nearly all industry is virtually run
by radiation protection authorities (...it is until such time when similar
things would be happening here, in Australia).

2.	Let's adopt the legislation which would regulate everything, but
leave holes in it, - so those who will have ability, time and desire can get
exemptions, exclusions etc.   And it will take some effort and a
considerable amount of time to get them - which means providing jobs for
thousands of regulators and specialists.  It's not that I mind - I am one of
them...  I know - "you, cynical bastard" etc., hear this all the time, - but
is it not what this is all about?

3.	Let's regulate nothing natural (apart from 2-3 'extreme' cases).
This is a preferred way, of course.  But it seems to me that it would be
idealistic to hope that this approach will be taken.

Any comments?  Are we our "best friends" or "worst enemies"?

Kind regards
Nick Tsurikov
Eneabba, Western Australia
http://eneabba.net/ <http://eneabba.net/> 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html