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

[John Andrews <andrewsjp@chartertn.net>]

David,



I am glad to find that I was wrong, sort of.  Unfortunately, I still 

believe that there was enormous harm done to Montclair by all 

concerned.  The buracuracy it to blame and you and I are or were part of 

it.  Now I am retired and glad of it.



John Andrews

Knoxville, Tennessee





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 Lawrence

> Eberline Services

> Montclair, 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/