[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Steven Wing etc.
Ruth,
I am familiar with the procedures used by EPA, and other regulatory
groups to derive their positions and find it disgusting. Usually, hugh
expenditures are made to compile scientific evidence and expert technical
guidance into a very thick document , thick enough to ensure that nobody
will read and comprehend its contents. The document is then essentially
ignored, and a decision is made based upon whatever is considered
politically expedient at the time.
A lot of time and money could be saved if they just skipped the science
part of it , and just took a public opinion survey to determine what their
position should be.
I believe the current system is little more than a deception intended
to
give the public the false impression that standards and regulations have a
scientific basis. Of course, I could be wrong, but how else could the
following
be explained :
1- failure to establish a BRC (or de minimis) standard
2- failure to set acceptable levels for "contaminated" metal recycle, and
3- the whole Yucca Mtn. fiasco
Jerry
-----Original Message-----
From: ruth_weiner <ruth_weiner@email.msn.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Saturday, June 24, 2000 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: Steven Wing etc.
>Jerry, I appreciate the irony, but I would like to offer an alternate view
>of EPA. When 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments were being written, and when I
>served on the NAPCTAC committee, EPA staff would compile a background
>information document (BID) that dealt with observed health effects and
>ecosystem effects, and the recommended ambient standard for many air
>pollutants is at about the 5th percentile of effect (2 sigma less than the
>mean). For emission standards, the BID went into considerable detail about
>what was known about health effects and what various groups dealing with
>health effects urged. The 1985 BID for radionuclides (EPA520) is a classic
>in this respect, which I consulted frequently until a year or so ago -- it
>is now clearly out of date, but still a model for the way these documents
>should be written. EPA lost a lot of its scientific staff, at least in the
>air pollution area, during the Reagan years. More recently, EPA has added
>some (though not all) staff with expertise more on the legal and social
>science side than in the natural sciences. There is also the same
>"stakeholder" political pressure on EPA as on DOE. My own opinion is that
>EPA asserted its "good science" side when the agency approved the
Compliance
>Certification Application for the WIPP (the BID for 40 CFR 194 is pretty
>good too, in my opinion). However, the agency has to walk the same narrow
>and indistinct line between what is scientifically sound and what is
>politically acceptable as DOE.
>
>Just my own thoughts
>
>Ruth Weiner
>ruth_weiner@msn.com
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@prodigy.net>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>Date: Saturday, June 24, 2000 5:53 PM
>Subject: Re: Steven Wing etc.
>
>
>> It seems to me that if people like Steven Wing, John Gofman, and
>Rosalie
>>Bertelle did not exist, the BEIR committee and EPA would have to somehow
>>invent them in order to justify the "moderate and reasonable" positions
>they
>>have taken on radiation effects.
>> On the one hand they see groups advocating the idea that all
radiation
>>is deadly regardless of dose levels. On the other hand, they see the
>>anti-LNT & hormesis folks telling them that low dose exposures are
harmless
>>or perhaps even beneficial.
>> Now, doesn't that make EPA requirements such as the 15 mrem/y cleanup
>>limit seem reasonable?
>>
>>jjcohen@prodigy.net
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jim Hardeman <Jim_Hardeman@mail.dnr.state.ga.us>
>>To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>>Date: Friday, June 23, 2000 3:17 PM
>>Subject: Steven Wing to speak in Boulder, CO this weekend
>>
>>
>>>RADSAFE'rs -
>>>
>>>See the attached press release.
>>>
>>>Jim Hardeman
>>>Jim_Hardeman@dnr.state.ga.us
>>>
>>>========
>>>
>>>Radiation risks examined
>>>
>>>
>>>Updated 12:00 PM ET June 22, 2000
>>>
>>>By Brian Hansen
>>>Colorado Daily
>>>U. Colorado
>>>
>>>
>>>(U-WIRE) BOULDER, Colo. -- A scientist whose research has raised serious
>>questions about the public health risks associated with radiation exposure
>>in and around U.S. Energy Department facilities, such as the
now-mothballed
>>Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant, will speak in Boulder this weekend.
>>>
>>>Steven Wing, a researcher at the School of Public Health at the
University
>>of North Carolina, will lecture on Friday evening about the risks that
>>radiation poses to people who have worked in -- or lived around -- DOE
>>nuclear weapons plants. On Saturday, Wing will host a workshop designed to
>>give people opportunities to ask questions about the health risks
>associated
>>with radiation exposure.
>>>
>>>The lecture and the workshop will both be held at the Rocky Mountain
Peace
>>and Justice center, located at 1520 Euclid Ave. in Boulder. Both events
are
>>free and open to the public.
>>>
>>>Wing first gained national prominence in 1991, when he published his
>>research study findings of workers at the DOE's nuclear weapons laboratory
>>in Oak Ridge, Tenn. Wing's research showed that Oak Ridge workers who had
>>been exposed to on-the-job radiation levels far below DOE standards were
>>dying from leukemia much faster than their counterparts in the general
>>public.
>>>
>>>Then, in a follow-up study published earlier this year, Wing found that
>>workers at four DOE nuclear weapons facilities -- Oak Ridge, Hanford
>(Wash),
>>Los Alamos (N.M.) and Savannah River (S.C) -- were dying at elevated
levels
>>of multiple myeloma, a rare form of cancer that affects blood-forming
>>tissues. Again, Wing found that none of the workers who succumbed to the
>>disease had been exposed to radiation levels exceeding federal standards.
>>>
>>>According to Wing, the findings indicate that official radiation
>protection
>>standards are set far too low.
>>>
>>>"The issues that I've raised have to do with whether or not there are
>>detrimental health effects from exposure to low levels of radiation, and
>how
>>big those health effects might be," Wing said in a telephone interview
from
>>his University of North Carolina office.
>>>
>>>Because of this research, Wing has become a leading critic of the
>>methodology by which the government currently sets radiation protection
>>standards. The levels are in large part based on studies of people who
>>survived the World War II-era atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
>>Japan.
>>>
>>>"The issue of standards setting involves who decides what risks are
>>acceptable," Wing said. "That in some ways is really a public-policy
>issue."
>>>
>>>Wing said that his research indicates that there is plenty of information
>>that is "not being brought to the table" when decisions are made regarding
>>the establishment of radiation protection standards. Wing says that the
>>exclusion of his information has been very troubling -- for reasons that
go
>>far beyond the realm of pure science.
>>>
>>>"The question is, in a democracy, who should be at the table when those
>>decisions are made?" he asked.
>>>
>>>For more information about this weekend's events, call the Rocky Mountain
>>Peace and Justice Center at 303-444-6981.
>>>
>>>(C) 2000 Colorado Daily via U-WIRE
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>************************************************************************
>>>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>>>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>>
>>************************************************************************
>>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>
>
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html