[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hanford Site Cleanup Standards
I appreciate your response.
Regarding your statement that, "... there has been no documented health effect among the non-worker public from radioactive contamination at Hanford.": I suppose that if someone were issued a citation for speeding, all he'd have to say is that, since there was no accident, he can't be issued a citation. Or, failing that, argue that the speed limit is too low. As I stated, the issue isn't criminal behavior, it's accountability for the results and lessons learned. Legislation and public opinion have determined that current conditions at Hanford, and several other sites, are not acceptable, and must be remediated. You may think otherwise, but that's largely irrelevant. It's good for a Radsafe rant, but not much else. I don't see CERCLA being changed significantly.
Regarding the retrospective application of health and safety standards: As a stamp collector, I used to use carbon tetrachloride frequently, to look for watermarks on stamps. That's when I wasn't playing with Hg, coating coins, etc. I'm not sure what my legal rights would be if I ever suffered an ill effect. One area where standards are being applied retrospectively, big time is asbestos. This was the miracle fiber, in the 1950's. I believe that some construction codes actually required the use of asbestos as a fire retardant. Now, companies are being forced into bankruptcy by health claims, or being forced to spend big $$ on remediation. I'm not saying that I approve, just that the way society treats radioactive material is not unique. (It's worthwhile noting
that the asbestos situation was probably exacerbated by the initial denial of responsibility by many corporations. There's an interesting series of articles on this in "The New Yorker," ca. 1971-1972, written by Bill Johnson, a classmate.)
Lesson learned: When undertaking a potentially hazardous activity, it's not "good enough" to comply with the current regulations.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
RuthWeiner@aol.com wrote:
> I would like to see a response to the statement, made by me and others in various forms, that there has been no documented health effect among the non-worker public from radioactive contamination at Hanford.
>
> Also, here are analogies for the "that was then,this is now" idea: forty years ago, carbon tetrachloride was sold under the trade name Carbona in grocery stores as a cleaning fluid, especially good on shoes. Are cancer patients who used Carbona retrospectively demanding compensation from the manufacturers, because it was later found to be a potential carcinogen and taken off the market? Are people maimed in car accidents 30 or more years ago suing manufacturers because seat belts were not mandatory and air bags weren't made for passenger cars? Half a century ago, DDT was available to spray with your Flit gun around your kitchen. Are we demanding cleanup of municipal landfills to get rid of Flit containers (and what would we do with them anyway once we found them)?
>
> Closer to topic: am I suing the dentist who, 60 years ago, x-rayed my teeth with slow x-ray film? the hospital, where I had my first hip surgery 25 years ago, that took seven x-rays of my unshielded pelvic region in four days (now they do one)?
>
> You get the picture. It is easy to beat up on the government and the defense facilities, especially since Watkins and O'Leary led the way in this effort, and that's why it is done.
>
> 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/