[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
AW: Hanford Site cleanup standards
- To: "Ted de Castro" <tdc@XRAYTED.COM>, "Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>
- Subject: AW: Hanford Site cleanup standards
- From: "Franz Schoenhofer" <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>
- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 22:13:45 +0200
- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:31:19 -0600
- Cc: "Conklin, Al" <Al.Conklin@DOH.WA.GOV>, "'Dukelow, James S Jr'" <jim.dukelow@PNL.GOV>, "William V Lipton" <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>, <BLHamrick@AOL.COM>, <RuthWeiner@AOL.COM>, <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <3F4CFF0D.54A9DD95@xrayted.com>
- Reply-To: "Franz Schoenhofer" <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>
- Sender: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]Im Auftrag von Ted de Castro
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. August 2003 20:57
An: Jerry Cohen
Cc: Conklin, Al; 'Dukelow, James S Jr'; William V Lipton;
BLHamrick@AOL.COM; RuthWeiner@AOL.COM; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Betreff: Re: Hanford Site cleanup standards
> 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.
----------------------------------------------------------
I don't agree. This issue need not be resolved, before answering the
question which in my opinion is the only one justified in the discussion
about clean up levels. Could (different?) RADSAFErs comment on the
consequences of "no action", assuming the LNT valid, assuming it not to be
valid and assuming hormesis from the legacy of cold war.
In any reasonable evaluation of the necessity to remediate areas where
whatever problem could cause troubles and where actions are to be
considered(too much tourism, arsenic, wildlife destroying woods, nitrate in
groundwater, heavy metals leaking to aquifers etc.) there is always
considered as one alternative "no action". Why is this not done in the
Hanford case? Or has it been done and nobody wants to mention the results,
because they do not fit the political correct aspects?
Looking forward to a reply!
Franz
************************************************************************
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/