Re: Environmentalism & the US Constitution

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

I would like to expand a bit on my first post to this thread.  Most of what many of us (including me) find objectionable in the federal implementation of radiation protection is in regulation, not law.  The Atomic Energy Act and the NWPA are perfectly good laws.  Again, it is some of their implementation with which I find fault.  I believe the focus of radiation protection regulation is too much on reducing the dose (or modeled dose) way beyond what can actually be considered health protection.  For example, 40 CFR 191 was a perfectly good reg, and there was no need, in my opinion, to replace it with a dose standard that is poorly supported, if at all, by documentation.  Unfortunately, EPA is adotpting this same stance for air pollutants (applying a LNT) which i think is dead wrong.



we should be arguing against the implementation, not against the law.



Ruth



-- 

Ruth F. Weiner

ruthweiner@aol.com

505-856-5011

(o)505-284-8406



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

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/