RE: Commenting on USNRC Environmental Impact Statements

["Richard F. Orthen" <rorthen@EARTHSCIENCES.NET>]

Excellent Doug.  Using language similar to yours, that's the route

'enlightened' NEPA documents map out to address the scientific uncertainties

underpinning radiogenic cancer risk estimates. IMHO, there's nothing wrong

with that route as it lays the cards on the table.  Right or wrong, the

reality is there are few NEPA documents published at the truncated

(surrogate) dose level. Understanding that, it's preferable and far more

productive to, for example, identify improvements that result in more

reliable estimates of dose likelihood and magnitude.  That's what a NEPA

document manager really wants to have in-hand to enable decision makers to

compare alternatives fairly and select the environmentally-preferable

alternative.



Rick Orthen







-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain

privileged or confidential information.  If you have received it in error,

please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.  Any other

use of the email by you is prohibited.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

************************************************************************

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/