Re: Manhattan Project Legacy

[Steven Dapra <sjd@swcp.com>]

June 8



	Bill Lipton wrote (June 5) in reply to Ruth Weiner:



	"So what you're saying is that it's ok to bury radioactive and hazardous

waste without any environmental assessment and without any records,  and to

then sell the land to an unsuspecting buyer without disclosing this; so

long as there's no specific regulation saying you can't.  When the material

is discovered, no problem, just tell them that, '... maybe there IS

actually no health threat.'  Did I overlook something?"





	Ruth Weiner replied (June 7):



	"No.  That is not what I said.  To repeat:



	"There was no legislation regarding disposal of hazardous material, or the

environmental impact of such disposition, before 1970.   I meant, of

course, that such legislation and/or regulation could hardly have been

anticipated in 1950.  



	"I also said, perhaps the buried material does not pose a threat.



	" 'The dose makes the poison.'  What is the activity of the buried

material?  If it is relatively low activity, and low specific activity,

well then, maybe there is no health threat (or a negligible threat)."



	I concur with Ruth on this.  There is too much judging what happened in

the past based on present-day regulations.  If -- note the qualifier --

wastes in the past were disposed of in accord with regulations, knowledge,

or the state of the art, what is the purpose of complaining about how that

was contrary to what we know now, or what is required now.  Besides, we

can't change the past so there is no constructive purpose served by

bemoaning what was done then.



	Perhaps a little more to the point, perhaps the buried material does not

pose a threat.  Why not address the present danger (if indeed there is

any), instead of moaning and groaning about how things weren't done in the

past the way they would have to be done today.



	With respect to "unsuspecting buyers," in the case of Love Canal, the

buyer, who was threatening to begin condemnation proceedings, was fully

informed and went ahead and used the property contrary to the express

warnings of Hooker Chemical.  There probably wasn't any health threat

either.  (See Janerich et. al. 1981.)



Steven Dapra

sjd@swcp.com



REFERENCE



Janerich Dwight T. et. al.  Cancer Incidence in the Love Canal Area.

Science.  212:1404-1407; 6-19-81.







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

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/