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

[Bernard Cohen <blc+@PITT.EDU>]

    The question is, how do they determine what level gives people less 

than one chance in a million of dying from the exposure? My 

understanding is that they consider the lowest level at which there is 

hard evidence for a serious health effect, and set the "threshold" a 

factor of two or so below that. If they did that with radiation rather 

than using LNT, allowable exposures would be far higher than they are. 

In U.S., EPA regulations are reasonably well in effect for air 

pollution, but EPA still estimates that at least ten thousand Americans 

are dying each year from air pollution. That is far more than a risk of 

one chance in a million.

    An earlier EPA study of these matters is summarized in the section 

entitled "Other Environmental Pollutants ...." in my paper on Catalog of 

Risks, posted as item #4 on my web site  www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc



Franz Schönhofer wrote:



>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/

>

>  

>