[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

regulatory purpose vs. WILL kill



 
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu [mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]Im Auftrag von Jim Hardeman
Gesendet: Montag, 23. September 2002 20:48
An: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Betreff: Re: Fw: Fw: Nuclear experts doubt terror risk

John —
 
Please see "Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents" (EPA 400-R-92-001, October 1991). This document establishes the range of projected dose at which certain protective actions (i.e., sheltering, evacuation) should be implemented in the U.S. In establishing a range of 1-5 rem TEDE for evacuation, EPA specifically adopts the rounded BEIR III value of "a risk of 3E-4 cancer deaths per person-rem" (page C-10). Several pages (B-18 through B-22) specifically discuss cancer risk.
 
So, in my humble opinion, EPA HAS ...  specifically in reference to emergency planning ... said that small amounts of radiation delivered to large populations WILL kill.
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did I miss something? You cite "a risk of......" and then you convert this into "WILL kill". There is a tremendous difference between a risk and to be killed. When driving a car, you have a certain risk of being killed, but to all of my knowledge not everybody who drives a car is killed....
 
I fully support the statement of "jenday" cited below.
 
Franz
 
 
 
 
> What is interesting is that to the best of my knowledge, no federal agency
> or organization, i.e., NCRP, NRC, DOE, FEMA, etc., have ever made the claim
> that small amounts of radiation will kill.  The LNT is for regulatory
> purposes, not emergency planning.