Re: loosing, Tooth Fairy Project

["ruth_weiner" <ruth_weiner@email.msn.com>]

  Why is there such reluctance on the
>part of nuclear scientists and their institutions to state the truth about
>low-dose radiation?  If you disagree with the many scientific reports that
>reach this conclusion, then the flaws or errors that you see in those
>reports should be pointed out.  This has not been done, and I believe it is
>because those reports are correct in their conclusions.
>
>If, after we have publicly made clear these facts, the public still fears
>trivial levels of radiation, then I will join you in trying to convince
them
>to change their minds

EPA had some experience in trying to make standards less stringent, and even
in trying not to set a standard because of insufficient information.  as I
recall, in 1984  EPA was sued by one of the DC environmental groups because
the agency had announced that it would not set a standard (under Sec. 112 of
the Clean Air Act) for emission radioactive substances.  The agency claimed
available information was not sufficient (EPA had more scientists then), the
enviro group won the lawsuit, and 40 CFR Part 191 and 40 CFR Part 60 were
the result.  In 1977, the ozone air ambient standard was increased by 50%
(higher number, less stringent standard), but EPA has since been pressured
into making it more stringent again.  I forget the years, but a similar
thing happened with nitrogen oxides.

I believe regulatory agencies are justifiably gun-shy.  If EPA were to
propose standards that acknowledged a threshold for radiation damage and
were not based on the LNT theory, are we all prepared to descend on Congress
in virtual droves to back the agency up?  I do believe Sen. Domenici is
paving the way for this.

Ruth Weiner
ruth_weiner@msn.com



************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html