Re: evolution of regs? -Reply

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Al,
> 
> OK.  So how do we get it "fixed"?  Clearly we must respond to the EPA's 
> request for comment.  But -- what is the appropriate replacement for the 
> linear hypothesis?  We need to "help" the regulators with an alternative, 
> not just say the linear hypothesis is wrong.
> 
> Al Tschaeche, e-mail: ATSCHAEC@INEL.GOV

I'm pretty simple minded, so I would follow mechanisms for setting toxicity
limits: compile actual health effects data for specific exposures, allow for
whatever the uncertainty is (and it is *small* for many exposure/dose data),
allow a safety factor of 3-10, and set a limit. 

I would pursue all reasonably achievable relevant research be pursued that
would likely reduce any uncertainties (focused on real populations at the dose 
ranges of significance)! 

I'm sure there is more, but....

Sorry about the delay in responding; I didn't see any others. Did I miss some?

> On Mon, 6 Feb 1995 JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com wrote:
> 
> > Paul,
> > 
> > I don't really disagree with your points, but the real point is to address why
>  
> > EPA and DOE and NRC and FDA, etc., come out with regs and programs that cost
> > $100s Billions, costly changes to Part 20, etc. that are unsupported by
> > radiation effects data, and lay it on the need to conform to BEIR V, when the
> > science (and scientists like Warren Sinclair, Arthur Upton, and others have
> > stated) do not justify those costs; and the science community says only timid
> > responses, and will talk about fears for budgets and programs in hallway
> > conversations. 
<snip>
Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide