[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: COGEMA Says No to LNT
Sorry folks. I guess where I get confused is where in this whole thing is
"rulemaking" or "change in regulations" an issue?
The way I understand it is that Cogema, in some impact statement, has chosen
to follow HPS guidance (or similar: 3 mrem vs. 5 rem?) on how to calculate
impact. Then there was some unrelated stuff thrown in (not in the Cogema
report, but in the IEER report discussing the Cogema report) about iodine
and some unrelated other Cogema issues. I would like to ask you again: Has
Cogema violated any laws or regulations by following HPS guidance on how to
assess impacts?
Feel free to re-type the entire HPS position statement. This doesn't change
the fact that HPS specifically instructs NOT to calculate a collective
impact from small individual doses.
Kai
----- Original Message -----
From: "William V Lipton" <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>
To: "Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)" <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov>
Cc: "Kai Kaletsch" <info@eic.nu>; "RadSafe" <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: COGEMA Says No to LNT
> John - As usual, you said it better than I could. Let me add: (a) As you
> stated, this is a position statement, not rulemaking. Although I largely
agree
> with this statement, I feel strongly that rulemaking must consider inputs
from
> all interested parties, and am highly suspicious of any party which feels
he has
> a monopoly on "scientific truth," whatever that is. (b) Kai seems to
have
> overlooked other parts of the position statement such as, "The possibility
that
> health effects might occur at small doses should not be entirely
discounted."
> Regardless of "scientific truth," I am strongly opposed to any change in
> regulations which would allow unnecessary dose or widespread contamination
of
> the environment.
>
> The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
> It's not about dose, it's about trust.
> Curies forever.
>
> Bill Lipton
> liptonw@dteenergy.com
>
> "Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)" wrote:
>
> > Kai,
> > I am not sure what you mean by "the "megalomaniac on a mission from God"
in
> > the HPS." I do believe that the HPS position statement is a position
> > statement. It has nothing to do with the violation of any law or
> > regulation. Remember, there is still free speech, and the HPS is
exercising
> > its option to make a statement. I believe that their statement is
valid.
> > With regard to COGEMA, I believe that the issue is whether or not they
> > violated a law or regulation, which is a little different.
> >
> > By the way, the whole quote from the HPS is
> >
> > "In accordance with current knowledge of radiation health risks, the
Health
> > Physics Society
> > recommends against quantitative estimation of health risks below an
> > individual dose of 5 rem in
> > one year or a lifetime dose of 10 rem in addition to background
radiation.
> > Risk estimation in this
> > dose range should be strictly qualitative accentuating a range of
> > hypothetical health outcomes
> > with an emphasis on the likely possibility of zero adverse health
effects.
> > The current philosophy of
> > radiation protection is based on the assumption that any radiation dose,
no
> > matter how small,
> > may result in human health effects, such as cancer and hereditary
genetic
> > damage. There is
> > substantial and convincing scientific evidence for health risks at high
> > dose. Below 10 rem
> > (which includes occupational and environmental exposures), risks of
health
> > effects are either too
> > small to be observed or are non-existent."
> >
> > -- John
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kai Kaletsch [mailto:info@eic.nu]
> > Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 12:16 PM
> > To: William V Lipton; Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)
> > Cc: RadSafe
> > Subject: Re: COGEMA Says No to LNT
> >
> > John and Bill:
> >
> > Do you disagree with the position statement by the "megalomaniac on a
> > mission from God" in the HPS?:
> >
> > ( http://www.hps.org/documents/radiationrisk.pdf )
> >
> > "In accordance with current knowledge of radiation health risks, the
Health
> > Physics Society recommends against quantitative estimation of health
risks
> > below an individual dose of 5 rem in one year ."
> >
> > Isn't that what the report claims Cogema did? Is the HPS position
statement
> > in violation of any US laws or regulations?
> > . . .
> > ************************************************************************
> > 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/
>
************************************************************************
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/