Open letter to Energy Secretary Bill Richardson ...

["Jim Hardeman" <Jim_Hardeman@mail.dnr.state.ga.us>]

Fellow RADSAFER's ...

The following open letter to Energy Secretary Bill Richardson appeared in the Opinion section of today's (8/8/00) Oak Ridger (www.oakridger.com). I thought y'all might be interested.

Jim Hardeman
Jim_Hardeman@mail.dnr.state.ga.us 

================

Some questions for Secretary Richardson

To The Oak Ridger:

This is an open letter to Energy Secretary Bill Richardson.

As a concerned citizen, I would like to inquire about your recent decision to suspend the release of potentially contaminated scrap materials for recycling from DOE nuclear facilities.

You stated in your DOE News release that "I am making this decision to ensure American consumers that scrap metal released from Energy Department facilities for recycling contains no detectable contamination from departmental activities." Do you understand how ludicrous that statement is?

What bothers me even more is the unspoken statement that you're sending to the American public. In my opinion you're telling the public that no exposure is acceptable. You are an appointed person of relatively high power in our government and yet you make what appears to be an independent decision.

I, as a taxpayer want to know what you based this decision on. I also want to know what qualifications, such as education, experience, etc., that gives you the right to make this decision on your own.

Do you not understand that our world has been radioactive from the day it was formed? That the general public is routinely exposed to natural radioactivity in food, water and our own bodies?

When are you or someone else in our government going to tell the American public who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day that they receive a dose of alpha emitting ionizing radiation directly to living lung tissue of 8,000 millirem of dose per year? This is more than an occupational nuclear worker is allowed to receive in one year.

Do you not know that you can go to any grocery store and buy food that is naturally radioactive or a discount store and buy radioactive lantern mantels?

Along the same line of thought, if you are going to stop the release of these metals until there is no detectable, then shouldn't we stop all travel by air because airline passengers receive exposure from radiation while flying? Shouldn't we stop all radiation therapy for cancer treatment since these treatments involve the use of radioactive materials and/or radiation exposure?

And yet you're concerned about releasing this metal for scrap? I'm sorry, but as a person with almost 23 years' experience in the field of health physics, I find your decision based solely on ignorance on your part and is a prime example of someone who speaks before thinking and getting all the facts.

Average exposure to a member of the general public in the U.S. is approximately 365 millirem of dose. This dose comes from man-made sources as well as natural background radiation. Radiation is all around us and always here. So how exactly do you intend to quantify no detectable?

Or is it your intention to put a huge number of people out of work just to satisfy your political gains or the wishes of some environmental activists somewhere?

And exactly how do you intend to justify to American taxpayers that it will cost untold amounts of money to store or bury this material?

I have absolutely no problem with my government addressing issues of public concern, but to not provide the public with all pertinent information is unfair to the public.

And just exactly who is this "public" voicing concerns? Everyone I know who has basic knowledge of radiation and contamination is not voicing these "concerns."

I train people to work in radiologically hazardous environments and one thing I emphasize to people is the fact that humans fear what they do not understand. That is what I do Š I show them how to understand something they cannot see, hear, taste, touch or smell.

Don't you think that someone (maybe you?) should help the public understand, too? Or is it your intention to add to the public's fear factor?

I will never deny that radiation in high enough doses is detrimental to human health, but release limits pertaining to free release of radioactive materials used in today's regulations are perfectly acceptable when compared to what it's going to take to achieve "no detectable."

Time and time again, we (the public) have watched as all forms of media tell only one side of the story concerning radiation. It appears now that our own secretary of energy is doing it, also.

Carol O'Shaughnessy




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