[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Hanford Site cleanup standards

Although LNTH is not, in itself, a regulation, it is the basis for our

"risk based" cleanup standards.



I'm not sure what is meant by having this issue "resolved."  Keep in

mind that the regulations do not claim that LNTH is a fact, only a

useful precaution for planning purposes.  I do not see enough evidence

to upset this approach in the near future.  I do not believe that,

regardless of the outcome of the Cohen-Pushkin et. al. debate, that the

regulations would be changed solely on the basis of epidemiological,

especially ecological studies.  We will need to understand a lot more

about the mechanisms for radiation injury and cancer induction/promotion

to really determine the validity of LNTH.



In the meantime, the best approach is to remember that the regulations

can take into account economic and social factors.  I don't see the EPA

holding out for unreasonable standards, especially if the taxpayers,

rather than a deep pocket corporation, will be paying the bill.  I

believe one posting noted that green fielding Hanford would take the

entire national budget for several years.



BTW - You're all qualified to criticize my postings.  However, I'm

getting tired of the rather shopworn national security argument; the

same one Nixon used during Watergate.  While it's true that national

security concerns may require relaxing environmental standards in some

cases, this should be done in a rational way, by carefully considering

risk versus benefit.  National security does not justify giving the

government, or anyone else, a blank check to pollute.



The opinions expressed are strictly mine.

It's not about dose, it's about trust.

Curies forever.



Bill Lipton

liptonw@dteenergy.com



John Jacobus wrote:



> I did not know that the LNTH was a regulation that

> required site cleanups.  I thought it was the

> standards set by EPA, DOE, etc.

>

> --- Ted de Castro <tdc@XRAYTED.COM> wrote:

> >

> >

> > > This discussion leads me to wonder what would

> > result, in terms of adverse effects to humans and/or

> > the

> > > environment, if no site cleanup activity were

> > undertaken at Hanford.

> >

> > Which brings us back to LNTH once again!  Until that

> > issue is resolved -

> > legitimate and rational questions such as this

> > cannot be answered.

> >

>

> =====

> -- John

> John Jacobus, MS

> Certified Health Physicist

> e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com

>

> __________________________________

> Do you Yahoo!?

> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com





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

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/