AW: Question: Proposals for a Non-LNT world?

[Franz Schönhofer <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>]

Franz Schoenhofer

PhD, MR iR

Habicherg. 31/7

A-1160 Vienna

AUSTRIA

phone -43-0699-1168-1319





> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

> Von: RuthWeiner@aol.com [mailto:RuthWeiner@aol.com]

> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Oktober 2004 20:31

> An: Franz Schönhofer; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> Betreff: Re: Question: Proposals for a Non-LNT world?

> 

> 1.  Many regulated pollutants (e.g., sulfur dioxide)have thresholds of

> effect which are incorporated in the regulation.  That, in fact, makes

> regulation easier, not harder

> 2. EPA has a "risk threshold" of 1E-6, below which risk need not be

> considered.

> 





 Ruth, 



You put down in two lines the essence of what I was going to write after

having finished other urgent business on the internet:



Knowing the European Union legislation and many national European

legislations quite well I cannot assume and in many cases I know it,

that US legislation is so much different: There are thresholds, or call

it maximum permissible concentrations of toxic substances (including

radioactive ones) in whatever environmental matrix - air, water,

drinking water etc. and of gamma-doses. Nitrates, pesticides, herbicides

are regulated, mercury is regulated, arsenic is regulated, sulphur

dioxide emissions are regulated as well as nitrous oxides from power

plants or factories, concentrations of toxic chemicals at working places

are well regulated, may they be toluene, benzene, smoke from cigarettes,

carbon tetrachloride and and and and! Their MPC's are derived by a

method not much, if at all different from that used for radioactive

substances, including risk factors and "dose"-coefficients. So what is

the proposal of those who advocate the ban of LNT, what is their

approach? I asked for that but have not received any precise answer,

better to say no answer at all. If I had received an answer stating that

the limits should be multiplied by one million, this would have been an

answer to discuss about, but complaints about the costs of too low

limits are not an answer to my question. 



So is "radioactivity" such a totally different toxicity than from all

others? No answer to this question yet received.





The risk threshold of 1E-6 you mention (and I mentioned without the

number) is the same not only for "radioactivity" but for all toxic

substances, excluding probably some extremely cancerogenic substances,

for which the EU set a threshold of 1E-4. 



Best regards, mit meinen besten Gruessen!



Franz









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

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/