FW: Re: Implementing the EPA radium-in-drinking-water regulation

["yuan-chi luan" <nbcsoc@hotmail.com>]

IFY





----------------------------------------------------

>From: "Mike Fox" <foxy1@owt.com>

>To: "yuan-chi luan" <nbcsoc@hotmail.com>, <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>,      

>   <rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU>

>CC: <wlchen@ym.edu.tw>, <wuj@aruplab.com>, <ktzutung@ms29.hinet.net>,       

>  <mlshen@ccms.ntu.edu.tw>, <nbcsocmong@hotmail.com>,        

><tisechou@hotmail.com>, <wpdeng@ms41.hinet.net>, <nusta66@hotmail.com>,     

>    <jingying@ms22.hinet.net>, <mcshieh@iner.gov.tw>,        

><yukihsu@seed.net.tw>

>Subject: Re: Implementing the EPA radium-in-drinking-water regulation

>Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:46:35 -0800

>

>Dear Yuan-chi Laun:

>You need not apologize for your criticism of the EPA (and many similar

>federal and state agencies).  Any person or agency which embraces and

>imposes the costly and indefensible the LNT, deserves all of the criticism

>it gets.  Your voice is most welcome.

>Mike Fox

>

>----- Original Message -----

>From: "yuan-chi luan" <nbcsoc@hotmail.com>

>To: <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>; <rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU>

>Cc: <wlchen@ym.edu.tw>; <wuj@aruplab.com>; <ktzutung@ms29.hinet.net>;

><mlshen@ccms.ntu.edu.tw>; <nbcsocmong@hotmail.com>; <tisechou@hotmail.com>;

><wpdeng@ms41.hinet.net>; <nusta66@hotmail.com>; <jingying@ms22.hinet.net>;

><mcshieh@iner.gov.tw>; <yukihsu@seed.net.tw>

>Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 7:50 PM

>Subject: RE: Implementing the EPA radium-in-drinking-water regulation

>

>

> > Dear RSH friends,

> >

> > There were two issues recently regarding the US EPA environmental policy

>and

> > regulation on radon and radium risk to people. As I am foreigner, it is

> > impolite for me to say any thing. But I am a radiation safety scientist,

>my

> > conscience persistively told me those issues might not beneficial but

> > harmful to the American population, I should render some advices based 

>on

> > what I know and on some special personal experiences. I know I could not

> > help much with my awkward English, but some of our RHS friends could 

>help

>a

> > lot, if they wish to cite my information and agree to my viewpoints, and

> > wish also to benefit the American population.  .

> >

> > The US EPA adopted the strict environmental policy and regulation on

> > emphasis of the risk of radon and radium, because it is popular known 

>from

> > the LNT model that   any additional radiation received (also from radon

>and

> > radium)could produce more harmful effects to people, such as the radon

>could

> > produce 21,000 lung cancer deaths each year, and if the radium in the

> > drinking water has not been removed, it could also produce considerable

> > additional cancer deaths each year. But there were numerous radiation

> > scientist at the same time asserted that low dose of radiation is not

> > harmful, would not induce any excess cancers, but beneficial and could

> > reduce cancers in contrast. It implies that the strict EPA policy and

> > regulation might not benefit the American population but harm them.

> >

> > Dr. B.L. Cohen asserted higher concentration of radon could reduce lung

> > cancer based on his long time study of health effects of radon. From his

> > radon-cancer correlation curve as described in his paper (HPJ 68, 1995),

>one

> > could estimated if the additional radon cause double doses of natural

> > background to the American population in a year (2 mSv or 200mrem), the

>lung

> > cancer deaths could be considerable reduced, and about 26% of total 

>cancer

> > reduced, it means about 100,000 cancer deaths in America. After long 

>times

> > investigation of the cancer mortality, Dr. D. T. Luckey also indicated 

>in

> > his many paper and in the 1999 ANS annual meeting that, if all the

>American

> > population could receive some supplemental doses through public health

> > service in the amount as commonly received by the nuclear workers, about

> > half or 200,000 cancer deaths of the Americans could be prevented each

>year.

> > But it might be often considered that there are too many confounding

>factors

> > in their estimation, for conservative and high radiation safety 

>assurance,

> > the US radiation regulatory authorities would not accept the concept of

>the

> > Low dose radiation is beneficial to humanity until today.

> >

> > The higher radiation received and lower cancer deaths reduced to people

> > observed by Drs. Cohen and Luckey, might have some personal biases, but

> > there were also many other observation based on the factual data, such 

>as

> > Dr.J. Jagger in his paper (HPJ, 74-4, 1998) indicated that the three

> > Mountain States have few times higher of natural background radiation 

>than

> > the three Gulf States, the total cancer and lung cancer death mortality 

>of

> > the mountain States is 21% and 31% lower respectively than the three 

>Gulf

> > States. There is another paper by Dr. P. Fong (presented in the 1996 one

> > decade after Chernobyl conference, paper number IAEA-CN-63/405, but not

> > edited by the Joint Secretariat) that the 8 Mountain Sates have double

> > natural background radiation higher than the 8 Gulf States, but their

>total

> > cancer deaths 25% lower. According to such ratio, there would be 

>3,000,000

> > cancer deaths prevented by Chernobyl accident.

> > Both the papers of Drs. Jagger and Fong based mostly on the US 

>government

> > official Statistics (could be cheeked in many liberal) and the 20-30 %

> > reduction of cancer deaths would be difficultly affected by all the 

>minor

> > confounding factors.

> >

> > The higher radiation exposed to the people in the Mountain States could

> > reduce their cancer, might be considered as a coincident (actually there

>are

> > also such cases in India, China etc) and the difference is still not a

>very

> > high statistical significance, could be caused also by unknown factors,

>but

> > an incredible Co-60 contamination incident occurred in Taiwan, about

>10,000

> > irradiated residents received the highest average dose ever received by

> > humans (the average dose of the atomic survivors was 227mSv according to

>Dr

> > Luckyˇ¦s calculation, and the Chernobyl emergency workers was about 100

>mSv

> > as reported in the one decade after Chernobyl conference and in 2000 UN

> > report to the general assembly) But the highest radiation doses of the

> > irradiated residents with the average dose in 400 mSv have 

>serendipitously

> > reduced of their 97% cancer deaths. There were actually no human data

> > indicated radiation could increase the hereditary defects, but sharp

> > reduction did appeared among the children of the irradiated residents. 

>It

> > might be believed that the reports of sharp reduction of cancers and

> > hereditary defects in the ANS and HPS annual meetings could be presented

> > only by some pro-nuclear scientists, actually the cancer deaths number 7

> > were cited from the publication of anti-nuclear scientists, and the more

> > than 200 reduced cancer deaths were completely based on the government

>vital

> > statistics from 1983 until today. Such statistical significance is

> > difficultly refuted and denied by most people, except by some highly

>biased

> > political persons.

> >

> > I wish my responding on the EPA environmental policy and regulation 

>could

>be

> > used as a consideration reference. In case I offend something, please

> > forgive me for I just intend to benefit the American citizens.

> >

> > Best regards,

> > Y. C. Luan  Senior scientist of NuSTA and Consultant of NBC Society in

> > Taiwan.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ------------------------------ original message------------------------

> > >From: "Jim Muckerheide" <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>

> > >To: <rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU>

> > >Subject: Implementing the EPA radium-in-drinking-water regulation

> > >Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:43:55 -0500

> > >

> > >Friends,

> > >

> > >FYI. Please consider responding to describe the non-issue of a limit on

> > >a natural background radiation source that is a few percent of average

> > >natural background, or a limit based on 4 mrem/yr vs. background that

> > >varies from about 80 mrem/year to more than 8,000 mrem/yr.

> > >

> > >Thank you.

> > >Regards, Jim Muckerheide

> > >========================

> > >

> > >Will suburbs clean up water by dirtying land?

> > >By Dave Orrick Daily Herald Staff Writer

> > >Posted January 25, 2004

> > >

> > >From Batavia to Lake Zurich, Chicago-area suburbs have been scrambling

> > >to meet a federal deadline to remove radium from drinking water.

> > >

> > >But they may be making a dangerous trade-off.

> > >

> > >Experts - ranging from regulators to environmentalists - say that in

> > >cleaning well-water of the naturally occurring radioactive material,

> > >they may wind up creating an environmental hazard for a greater number

> > >of people. The problem, they acknowledge, is that the issue is so new

> > >that no one has yet examined the ramifications of a piecemeal solution

> > >to address a known danger.

> > >

> > >Within the next few years, water bill hikes in about 100 well-water

> > >communities across the state will go up to pay tens, possibly hundreds,

> > >of millions of dollars for new water treatment facilities that will

> > >filter out the potentially hazardous element. Dozens of suburban

> > >communities are affected.

> > >

> > >But filtering radium from the water has sprung a new question: Will the

> > >solution in many communities simply transfer the problem from the water

> > >supply to somewhere else, possibly affecting far more people?

> > >

> > >It could, wary regulators warn.

> > >

> > >-continue:

> > >http://www.dailyherald.com/news_story.asp?intid=3801191

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > _________________________________________________________________

> > Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.

> > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

> >

> >

> >

>

>



_________________________________________________________________

Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. 

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail