Re: Threshold

[BLHamrick@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 04/18/2002 6:38:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time, muckerheide@attbi.com writes:





> 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).






I disagree with this assessment (even though I am not an LNT proponent):


1.  Even IF LNT were valid, there is a point at which the risk, relative to all the other risks (including and perhaps especially background radiation), becomes negligible.  That is generally set by policy (in this country) at around 1E-6 increased risk of cancer over a lifetime.


2.  I just did a cursory review of EPA's drinking water standards for carcinogens (the one's on their list at any rate), and ONE glass of water, at their MCL's carries a risk of 5 additional fatal cancers in 100,000,000 (5E-8).  A lifetime of that water adds up to one additional fatal cancer in every 100 persons (EPA uses 2 liters per day X 70 years of drinking water), so there's TWENTY times the risk from just drinking water (remember, it's in your soup, coffee, and cantaloupes, not just out of your tap) as from living on a decommissioned site that meets the 25 millirem per year standard (5E-4 risk from 30 years at the site - that's the conservative estimate of average long-term residence).  And, while we might fret and wring our hands over this additional risk in public hearings, do you think ANY of us go home, and stop for a moment to ponder this horrendous risk, as they pour water from the tap to make their Kraft macaroni and cheese for their kids?  !

;No.  You know why?  'Cuz no one is dropping dead around them from drinking water.  And, no one around them is dropping dead around them from radiation either.  The public needs to put their fears in perspective.


3.    1E-6 might sound great, but if drinking water, and living in Mother Nature's bath of radiation creates 10,000 times that risk, then maybe it doesn't make a lot of sense to quibble about 50 ppb of arsenic vs. 10, or 25 millirem per year vs. 10, given the actual cost of reducing these risks, which can be substantial.  These costs generally accelerate as the levels are reduced (i.e., the curve is supra-linear - costs increase in a non-linear fashion - you get less bang for your buck, the more risk you try to eliminate).  In addition to the pure "clean-up" costs, there are, for example, costs associated with lost research opportunities, and lost governmental oversight in areas with much greater risks.


4.  It is the public's money that is being saved, in the end.  For the most part, if we're talking about DOE sites, e.g., then they are cleaning up with public money.  If we are talking about commercial sites, then that industry will be passing the costs down through increased prices for services or goods.  In the end, the public needs to know and decide just how much they are paying for the elimination of negligible risk, and I think it's our duty to tell them.


Barbara