[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hanford Site cleanup standards
- To: "William V Lipton" <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>, "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>
- Subject: Re: Hanford Site cleanup standards
- From: "Howard Long" <hflong@pacbell.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 07:33:35 -0700
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 09:38:55 -0600
- Cc: "Ted de Castro" <tdc@XRAYTED.COM>, "Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>, "Conklin, Al" <Al.Conklin@DOH.WA.GOV>, "'Dukelow, James S Jr'" <jim.dukelow@PNL.GOV>, <BLHamrick@AOL.COM>, <RuthWeiner@AOL.COM>, <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
- References: <20030827192253.27120.qmail@web41610.mail.yahoo.com> <3F4D0B01.47E023FC@dteenergy.com>
- Reply-To: "Howard Long" <hflong@pacbell.net>
- Sender: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
"Resolved" might be legislation treating ionizing radiation sources like
fluoride in water.
Howard Long
----- Original Message -----
From: "William V Lipton" <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>
To: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>
Cc: "Ted de Castro" <tdc@XRAYTED.COM>; "Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>;
"Conklin, Al" <Al.Conklin@DOH.WA.GOV>; "'Dukelow, James S Jr'"
<jim.dukelow@PNL.GOV>; <BLHamrick@AOL.COM>; <RuthWeiner@AOL.COM>;
<radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 12:48 PM
Subject: 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/
>
>
************************************************************************
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/