Re: respiratory tract dose (HP vs. IH approach)

[BLHamrick@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 5/14/2003 7:46:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, sjd@swcp.com writes:


> NRC needs to be put on an
>
> unusually short leash.  Congress could do it, but the courage to do so is,
>
> shall we say, lacking.



I disagree with this assessment.  As an example, look at what happened to BRC (Below Regulatory Concern) in the early 1990s - it was Congress that put a stop to it, it was Congress that vehemently objected to the release for recycling of residually contaminated nickel in 2000, and it is Congress that does not have the courage or stamina to ever appear to reduce levels of "protection" to the public, irrespective of what the science says.


I have been involved recently in some disputes over science vs. policy, and been told to basically "butt out" (by a political wonk - not at work, BTW) of so-called "policy" decisions.  The problem is that the politicians, without understanding the science, cannot make an informed policy decision.  Asking a politician to pick a position on LNT is like asking your neighbor the plumber to decide whether or not you should have a kidney removed, based on the fact that one doctor says "yes," and the other says, "no."  


Barbara