Re: So, you think you have problems with radioactive sources?

[BLHamrick@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 11/11/2002 4:23:31 PM Pacific Standard Time, lists@richardhess.com writes:




> Actually, a careful reading of the above is that the losses are based on people's fears, not the actual effects of the radiation. Interesting. Irresponsible?
>
>
> Comments?




Interesting and irresponsible.  The evaluation is similar to my own evaluation of the effects of a dirty bomb, utilizing similar quantities of Cs-137, which, by the way, is not that easy to come by in the U.S., and reasonably easy to detect.


The dilemna we face is that we are regulating radioactive material usage (and dose to the public) down to levels that present no measurable hazard.  We do this, because we can, and not because there is any substantiated hazard at these levels.  This leaves us in a position where an exposure may occur to a member of the public that exceeds regulatory limits, but is not significant enough to require any emergency action.  It's a rather schizophrenic way of regulating, and leaves a large gray area when it comes to responding to incidents that involve radioactive materials, but do not involve a substantiated hazard.  We may, literally, have a billion dollar clean-up effort, based on a regulatory limit, but with no legitimate health and safety concern.  That makes no sense.


Barbara