RE: Is it too late?

[Jack_Earley@RL.GOV]

Sorry you missed the point. Although if you do it purposely it makes for a

good soap box,  I guess.



No one was suggesting that we take the money saved from over-regulation to

feed the children or anything similar to it. That's not even good economics,

btw. But it is addressing perspective and the big picture. What makes one

(potential) life here worth so bloody much more than millions of lives

somewhere else? On December 21, Kenneth Feinberg, special master for

compensation of the families of the victims of the September 11 attacks,

outlined his research as to what a life is worth, based on the policies of

various US agencies and other data. Bottom line: every victim's family gets

$250,000. Added to that will be their lost potential earnings, which could

be up to, as I recall, about $8M. If the victim was old and poor, which is

essentially redundant since 87 percent of those over 65 are, that may be all

you see. Anyway, that tells me that someone using $3K per rem is a lot

closer to the mark.



I'm going to be polite and not address the likelihood of a bureaucracy

offering to reduce its budget because it has less to oversee (consider that

fewer licenses could be required if the limits were higher and "risk" were

taken in a more reasonable context). But there's nothing productive about

spending the money on over-regulation, either for the licensee or the

regulator. We could pay people to stay drunk, too, and say that it was

contributing to the economy because they were buying their alcohol, which

was resulting in each dollar turning over seven times in the economy. But it

isn't productive. And guess what? Our individual and national economies

thrive only on our productivity. So even going beyond the perspective part,

which was my only original point until you pushed my economics button, the

more prosperous we are, the more we as individuals, businesses, and

countries look beyond ourselves to see where else we can be productive.



Jack Earley

Radiological Engineer





-----Original Message-----

From: Philip Egidi [mailto:phil.egidi@state.co.us]

Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 4:48 PM

To: blc+@PITT.EDU; Jack_Earley@RL.GOV

Cc: rjgunter@chpconsultants.com; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: RE: Is it too late?





Before this part of the thread spins out of control - 



Since when does savings in a regulatory arena translate to spending in

a foreign aid humanitarian program?  What movie have I missed?  Did I

wake up on another planet this morning?



I find this argument that these excessive costs (which I am NOT

arguing) to the nuclear industry, et al., need to be reduced so we can

feed the children, etc. to border on the ludicrous.



Savings to the licensees will translate to profit.  It will translate

to fewer staff, etc., that will contribute to the bottom line.  Fine. 

Make the argument on that point.  You can even stretch the argument and

claim that it will result in lower rates to consumers, etc. (which I

also doubt, I think it'll go to profit).



Show me one nuclear facility that took their savings in regulatory

relief and used it for humanitarian means (don't use some example of

touchy-feely  community relations).  The business of business is

business, not solving humanitarian problems. 



As far as government resources being freed up to spend on humanitarian

issues, remember the "Peace Dividend" (that crock of propaganda) that

was supposed to come after the end of the cold war?  Funding for

education, the poor, etc., all was supposed to get a significant boost

since defense budgets could be cut now that there was no big enemy.  It

never happened.  The Peace dividend went into the bottom line of

companies.  Funding for education was cut, "welfare reform" put

thousands on the street (yes, other thousands also went to work).  The

defense budget was back to its cold war era levels within a few years,

even without a major enemy.  And that was under a Democratic

administration (but a Republican Congress)!  So much for realizing

savings from changes in realpolitik.



To discuss the costs per rem is a great topic to discuss, but please

don't make a connection to transferring savings from a regulatory burden

to some humanitarian benefit.  I'm a State regulator, and my opinion is

if the regulatory limits are changed, the savings to the State will be

minimal, if any.  You still need oversight, licensing, inspection,

emergency response, etc.  Savings to the companies may also be less than

anticipated - someone still has to do the calculations, etc.  The only

real savings will be in the amount of dirt, steel, etc. that is under

D&D.  So the landfills may not make as much $$, and the labs may have

fewer samples to run.  There may be less sites that have to go under

institutional controls after cleanup (another topic for discussion), and

there may be fewer groundwater remedial actions.  I still have yet to

hear what type of protection schema should replace LNT when it dies. 

Who gets to deliver the extra dose?



I better stop before I really get off-topic!



Phil Egidi

Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment

phil.egidi@state.co.us 





>>> e <blc+@PITT.EDU> 01/16/02 11:21AM >>>



On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 Jack_Earley@RL.GOV wrote:



> I don't believe the limits are appropriate; I think the more correct

> response is to state why they should be raised. $30,000 per rem comes

out to

> what? $75M per life? UNICEF says they can immunize all the children

in

> Afghanistan against measles for $18M. Stick that in your

cost-benefit

> analysis.



	--There are many ways to save millions of lives in the Third

World

for costs of a few hundred dollars per life saved. These include

immunization programs, oral rehydration therapy, mosquito control,

etc.



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text

"unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject

line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/ 

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/