Re: Radionuclides in Groundwater

[Ted de Castro <tdc@xrayted.com>]

Henry Wood wrote:
> 
> I think it is simply fundamentally the right thing to do.  

Then YOU pay for it!

>Heck, IMO it is
> better to spend money on that than to subsidize insurance for people to
> build ocean-front homes.

Agreed - this should not be a government responsibility either.


> Several possible reasons I could quickly think of (I like 3 and 4 the best):
> (1) Because it is of the utmost import that our government provide for and
> protect the health of the populace.

Sorry - I missed Parental clauses in the constitution.

> (2) Because the potential health risk are real in these cases.

And therefore that means it is a government cost/responsibility - sorry
I don't follow.  So is falling off cliffs - should the government pay to
fence off Half Dome, the Grand Canyon or Niagara Falls?  Or any and all
precipices over 10 ft??

> (3) Because it is less expensive to drill a new well than to pay the
> life-long health care costs for children unknowingly exposed.

Ah - the old "blackmail" reason for accessing public Moines - with the
suggestion that the "potentially" afflicted will be on welfare??

> (4) Because use of such groundwater may cause unintended radiological >hot
> spots of soil contamination, if said water is used for (lawn) irrigation
> purposes.

Of what consequence and to whom?

> (5) Because the federal government has documented (most?) uranium-rich >areas
> across the country and maybe knew ingestion of GW from uranium-rich
> formations could be harmful??

Because the government has already expended public Moines to find and
document these areas it now has a responsibility to spend more public
Moines on people who chose to live there despite this information?

Talk to who ever sold the land to development, zoned it or approved the
building permit - but I consider that a tenuous connection as well.

> (6) Because most States do not require even a one-time well testing for
> radionuclides and thereby afford different protection under the law for
> people with wells versus people on water systems.

WOW - what a stretch of an over used concept!

> (6) Because the GW was contaminated 200-300 years ago when the State was
> formed and therefore could be viewed as the  at least somewhat the >States
> responsibility.

Under what tenant of common law?


This is NATURALLY occurring - bill GOD!


Tell me - what are YOU responsible for???

Sorry - but you caught me in a very feisty mood - good thing it isn't
anywhere near April 15th!!
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html