I understand what you are saying. I don't know enough to know where to draw the lines.
I agree that zero above background is extreme.
I gotta ask - whats wrong with toilet paper? Don't tell me its radioactive! Or were you looking at the bleaching process?
I'm not clear about your last comment - are you saying that the polluter should not pay, since in the end we all pay for the pollution clean up anyway? I'm not sure I'd agree with you - for example, when GE settled ith EPA to pay to clean up PCB's in the Hudson, how can you show that consumers paid more for a washing machine? At times, isn't it 'just' stockholders who are hurt for a quarter or two until profits go back up?
Norm
BLHamrick@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 07/10/2002 7:16:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ncohen12@comcast.net writes:
On the other hand, I'd rather err on the side of caution in setting those standards.This is a common philosophy, but, what I have found is that those who "err on the side of caution" have tunnel vision with respect to the impact of their conservatism.
If we consistently erred on the side of caution, we would not allow persons to purchase bleach and ammonia at the same time, nor build swimming pools, nor go hiking in wilderness areas; we would eliminate the use of automobiles, eliminate the production of a myriad of everyday products from ant spray to toilet paper. We would live in a Kazinski-world.
There are risks associated with every human activity, from driving to work everyday, to sleeping in one's own bed. We have to weigh all costs and all benefits of any given activity, including those over which we may have no individual control (such as the production of toilet paper), and not focus narrow-mindedly on a speculative chemical or radiological byproduct hazard of the activity, without regard to the social and economic benefits of the activity.
As an example, at least one of the bills still pending in California still contains a "zero" radioactivity above background standard. Not only is that a technological absurdity as written, but it is ill-conceived even in a technically correct form that would provide a non-zero, but extremely low standard. As one attempts to measure radioactivity closer and closer to background levels, the cost of survey, sampling and analysis increases in a disproportional manner.
At some point it is harmful to society to burden them with the costs of cleanup to these levels, in particular where the added "safety" is highly speculative, and the proposed exposure limits are orders of magnitude less than that delivered by nature.
And, make no mistake, the costs are to society at large. One can make a law saying the "polluter" shall pay, but the costs are ALWAYS passed down to the consumer, directly or indirectly, one way or another. In particular, where the alleged "polluter" is a federal or state agency, such as the DOD or DOE. These entities belong to we the people, and we the people pay their costs.
Barbara
--
Coalition for Peace and Justice and the UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321
Barr Ave., Linwood, NJ 08221; 609-601-8583 or 609-601-8537; ncohen12@comcast.net
UNPLUG SALEM WEBSITE: http://www.unplugsalem.org/ COALITION
FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE WEBSITE: http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org
The Coalition for Peace and Justice is a chapter of Peace Action.
"First they ignore you; Then they laugh at you; Then they fight you;
Then you win. (Gandhi) "Why walk when you can fly?" (Mary Chapin
Carpenter)