Re: Hanford Site cleanup standards

[John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>]

I think what you say goes to my point.  It is not the

risk value, per se, but how much we are willing (or

forced) to spend to avoid that risk.  There are

statistical risks of dying in a car, which I believe

is much higher that getting cancer from 25 mrem.  Yet

people take that risk of driving in a car.  Going back

to the driving analogy, would society be willing to

drive a 5 mph to reduce the death rate to nil?



In our society, regulations are enforced on the level

of risk, without any consideration about costs.  Until

the public recognizes the true costs, we are spinning

our wheels arguing about the LNTH.



--- William V Lipton <liptonw@dteenergy.com> wrote:

> 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

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/