Re: Radionuclides in Groundwater

["Michael S Ford" <MFORD@pantex.com>]

This is a joke, right?

(2)  REAL potential health risks?  As opposed to unreal potential health risks?  EPA has not demonstrated one iota of their postulated risks having any basis in substantiated fact - - which is why they're being sued in federal court over this rule.

(4)  I don't understand the "hot spot" issue.  You'd have to squirt your garden hose in one spot for a VERY LONG TIME and preferentially suspend all of the exceedingly dilute naturally occurring radioactive material on the surface of the ground-ergo-mud-ergo-swamp before you would arrive at anything approaching a hot spot.

(2nd 6)  Please explain to me how the ground water was *contaminated* with naturally occurring radioactive material 200-300 years ago by the formation of the state.

Here's the rub folks:  it worked for EPA on radon and it's working again for EPA on water.  They take some lukewarm findings from one of their advisory boards and pervert them into public health alerts broadcast on radio and TV.  It's an incredibly shameful practice.

The effect of the new groundwater rule is to divert limited community water supply monies away from the mitigation of REAL drinking water hazards that sicken and kill people year after year to the mitigation of POTENTIAL hazards that in turn create more hazards (i.e., the concentration on NORM in one location).

The total effect of this rule is, in fact, detrimental to public health.

v/r
Michael

>>> thenry@viperlink wrote on 30 Jan 01 1:51:14 PM >>>
I think it is simply fundamentally the right thing to do.  Heck, IMO it is
better to spend money on that than to subsidize insurance for people to
build ocean-front homes.

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.
(2) Because the potential health risk are real in these cases.
(3) Because it is less expensive to drill a new well than to pay the
life-long health care costs for children unknowingly exposed.
(4) Because use of such groundwater may cause unintended radiological hot
spots of soil contamination, if said water is used for (lawn) irrigation
purposes.
(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??
(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.
(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.

Regards

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