Re: 700 cancer cases caused by X-rays...Montclair NJ info...

[William V Lipton <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>]

Many thanx for "the rest of the story."  Responses such as yours are

what make Radsafe so valuable.



The opinions expressed are strictly mine.

It's not about dose, it's about trust.

Curies forever.



Bill Lipton

liptonw@dteenergy.com



LancerGT@AOL.COM wrote:



>            Bill, the outcome was the removal of the vast majority of

> Ra-226 contaminated soils from over 175 properties (along with a small

> component Th-232 probably used when the facilty switched to

> Mesothorium in the belief that it would be less hazardous) . The

> material involved was actually a process sand that was freely dumped

> after Radium refinement from material that lacked Radium's parental

> precursors ( only in one small area was Rn found in equilibrium with

> its U parent) .The actual disputes as I understood them, did not

> involve local landfills, but waste transportation and its' acceptence

> by another state. Nobody wanted New Jersey's contaminated garbage nor

> would they allow it to pass through their backyard (the anti's had a

> field day with this). This neccessitated the current USEPA involvement

> as the NJDEP and the state of NJ did not have the political horsepower

> to get the soil moving. The various horror stories many may have heard

> date from that time when the NJDEP began remediation with out securing

> the guarantees for disposal (eg homeowners out of their homes for

> years, placarded barrels piled ten high, techs surveying rocks for

> free release etc...). As for the book, it is well researched  dry read

> of which I keep a copy on my desk.    John, your conclusions are

> incorrect. The spectroscopic analysis of the soils from the Montclair

> Superfund Project irrefutably contradict your conclusions. It is

> pointless to go over that any further.  In several instances, the

> DOE's  4' soil barrier method was tried and abandoned as it was found

> to have only temporarily reduced Rn-222 gas entry into the residences

> - over time the levels returned as pathways were formed in response to

> the negative pressure environment of a basement ( sealing is a poor

> method of mitigation and in this instance, a very expensive one).

> Additionally, I cannot imagine short lived RDP's as a "source of

> contamination".     As for the action levels stated  in the Record Of

> Decision (ROD) when the EPA assumed responsibiltiy for the project,

> they were the good ol'  tried and true 5 and 15's (pCi/g)  OR interior

> Rn greater than 4 pCi/l. The vast majority of remedial actions

> involved violations of the former criterion with the latter being the

> recipients of a sub-slab mitigation system ( which was quite effective

> at 20 pCi/l and certainly not $20,000). At no point was soil removed

> solely to lower Rn-222 levels, except for the few soil barrier method

> test homes (which as discussed earlier, proved largely fruitless). It

> should be stated that very few homes exhibited elevated interior Rn

> levels to begin with, and of those, all but 1 or 2 sat upon

> significant deposits of  the waste stream  with activities in the 20

> 500 pCi/g range (Ra-226). The inclusion of the Rn component in the ROD

> at all was, as I suspect, a way of trying to put a friendlier face on

> the project. It always was a misnomer to call it a Radon remediation,

> but that is what it is generally referred to as by the locals. Rn was

> a problem that other homeowners elsewhere faced and it was after all

> "natural" ( one didn't need to live on a superfund site to have it).

> You could feel the increased level of fear in someone if the term was

> radioactive Radium  as opposed to Radon. People already had

> preconceived notions about Radon and would generally not seem as

> interested in continued scientific discussions concerning nature of

> their contamination as they felt it a somewhat known commodity. This

> also had the nice fit with the rest of the USEPA's new initiative on

> Rn at that time.  Now finally, to the 4 pCi/l threshold I hear so much

> about on the list.  This number as I understand it, like a lot of

> other regulatory numbers, relates only to ALARA ( reasonable is

> subjective by definition). The EPA has discussed reducing that level

> to 2 pCi/l - not because they believe  that is the level at which it

> is now safe -  but because they believe the vast majority of homes

> test in at significantly below this level, because they believe it is

> a number that can be readily detected, and because they believe it is

> a level which can be obtained without obtuse difficulty. There is no

> apparent epidemiological basis upon which these levels rest. The EPA

> subscribes to LNT, and as long as they do, they will continue to want

> all exposures reduced to as close to zero as possible. I personally

> doubt the efficacy of the extrapolations upon which LNT is based, nor

> do I have blind faith in  regulatory simplifications inherent in dose

> assessment, but I cannot as yet, find demonstrable proof to refute

> them. David LawrenceEberline ServicesMontclair, NJ These opinions are

> mine and definitely NOT THOSE OF MY EMPLOYER



************************************************************************

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/