[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Threshold
Jim,
Is this what BRC says or are you paraphrasing it? This is the kind of
statement I would expect to hear for the anti-nuclear group, which is not
what my understanding of the what the BRC was about. I would hate to think
you are using misquotes to push our agenda of informing the public.
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
3050 Traymore Lane
Bowie, MD 20715-2024
E-mail: jenday1@email.msn.com (H)
-----Original Message-----
From: muckerheide [mailto:muckerheide@attbi.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 9:36 PM
To: Sandy Perle; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Threshold
From: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@EARTHLINK.NET>
> BRC - Below Regulatory Concern.. A necessary concept that was
> ultimately defeated (even though we have these BRC philosophies in
> many of our regulations anyway - just not so obvious)!
Not right. BRC is exactly the WRONG concept.
BRC effectively said, "low doses may be hazardous, but we don't care because
it costs too much to protect you." Congress intervened (reasonably so).
. . .
************************************************************************
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/