[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
AARST Radon Scientist Claim Nation's Policy a Failure -InflammatoryClaims of Harm
Subject: Fwd: AARST Radon Scientist Claim Nation's Policy a Failure - E-Wire
Environmental Press Release Distribution
Date: 1/9/03
Radsafe:
Copied below is a link to a "Press Release" by a radon "professional society".
The contact information for the American Association of Radon Scientists and
Technologists [AARST] is found in the first link below and at the end of this
note.
http://www.ewire-news.com/wires/EC502F37-B461-4373-AFE9C7EE31E4D26A.htm
Personally, I find the press release to be quite inflammatory and rather
unprofessional [and completely self-selving in a financial sense] in that it
treats the upper bound estimates of radon health effects [based on EPA estimates
of harm] due to indoor radon to be absolute numbers [with no caveats as to the
risk being far lower than the upper bound]
Read the latest press release and see what you think.
Of note, the AARST has in its Code of Ethics statements which include the
following:
=================
"A. Relations with Colleagues, Clients, and Others
2. Members shall promote interest in and understanding of radon by the public,
and shall not make untrue, false, deceptive or exaggerated statements regarding
radon. Statements regarding radon by members shall have sound scientific basis.
Inaccurate statements concerning radon and radiation, when discovered, shall be
clarified as soon as possible."
=======
If anyone has something constructive to suggest to the AARST as to clarification
of their public statements based on soundly based 3rd party professional guidance
and scientific information they should contact the organization which issued the
News Release referenced above.
Of course, we could just let the risk estimates based on EPA and AARST claims to
stand as a radiation risk "point of reference" and argue that these hugely
greater radiation risks be dealt with in some balanced way vs. the trivial
radiation exposures and risks resulting from nuclear waste disposal, nuclear fuel
cycle, etc. I've always suggested that as a first step there be a level playing
field where radiation concerns be dealt with honestly based on actual radiation
exposure and risk. In this manner integrated risks from airborne radon in homes,
wasted radiation exposure in medical applications due to sloppy technique [with
about one-third yielding no useful diagnostic information according to FDA: equal
to millions of person-rems per year], etc., etc., dwarf the radiation exposure
and risk from the nuclear fuel cycle. Once the public has some inkling of this
they can make informed decisions as to how society spends its finite resources in
minimizing radiation risk overall and not spend countless $$billions on dealing
with perceived risks from the nuclear power fuel cycle due to a few person-rems
per year in plant emissions reductions, unreasonable steps to reduce occupational
dose at great cost for little benefit, or ludicrous steps to reduce the radiation
exposure to near zero [over all time] from nuclear waste disposal.
I think that getting the public, regulators, and legislators to give up reliance
on the LNT hypothesis and accept that based on hormesis there may be no risk [and
perhaps some benefit] from radiation exposure below some threshhold is a losing
battle for a long, long time. This LNT/hormesis debate only distracts from the
fact that the nuclear power fuel cycle presents documented trivial radiation
exposure and risks, including all parts of the fuel cycle, vs any of its present
bulk power alternatives [coal, oil, gas, geothermal], as well as trivial dose vs.
other sources of substantial radiation exposure to the general public where
radiation exposure could be reduced dramatically [in terms of millions of person-
rems] and at very low cost per person-rem avoided.
Should the HPS be pushing an emissions trading concept like with SO2 or CO2? A
few million $ provided by the utility industry, spent in controlling wasted
radition exposure to the US public from poor quality control in medical x-rays,
or remediation of some homes with greatly elevated radon levels, would more than
offset all annual exposure from nuclear waste disposal no matter what kind of
sensible disposal method for the waste was chosen. By the regulators and industry
accepting that nuclear waste disposal is so ultra-hazardous, and the radiation
risk resulting is such a concern that it must be controlled for thousands of
years at huge cost, we've justified spending hundreds of billions to avoid a
trivial radiation risk [while avoiding dealing with other larger RADIATION
risks]. Perhaps this type of paradigm shift would help the public and
legislators understand how trivial the radiation exposure and risk is from the
nuclear power fuel cycle and promote an informed discussion of how to deal with
radiation risks so as to minimize overall population exposure [at least until
hormesis becomes the basis for radiation regulation -don't hold your breath].
Stewart Farber, MS Public Health
email: farbersa@optonline.net
[203] 367-0791
CONTACT INFO FOR AARST [should you feel like "sharing" your thoughts:
American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists
01/08/2003
/CONTACT:
Peter Hendrick, Executive Director
American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists, Inc.
14 Pratt Road, Alstead, NH 03602
tel: 603-756-9259
director@aarst.org/
/WEB SITE:
http://www.aarst.org
************************************************************************
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/