Re: linear hypothesis

["ALDEN N TSCHAECHE" <XAT@inel.gov>]

According to the scuttlebutt that existed at the time BRC was "shot
down", it was because the NRCD absolutely refused to discuss the matter
with the NRC. So the NRC backed down. It was not Congress or the public
that shot it. It was NRDC. If anyone out there knows the real story, if
it differs from this, pleaselet us know. I don't think the NRDC position
has changed any, but maybe the new Commissioners would have a different
point of view that would let them ignore the NRDC.

*** Reply to note of 10/16/95 10:40

From: Wesley M. Dunn
To: RADSAFE --INELMAIL RADSAFE

Subject: Re: linear hypothesis

Excuse me, but the NRC DID propose a BRC.  It got shot down.  The
public and the Congress would not except the proposal, so it was
withdrawn.  So the argument that you can't convince the regulator is
incorrect in this instance.  Now, whether the NRC bungled its PR may
be debateable, but don't discredit their attempt.

(Yes, it's true.  This may be a first for me to defend the NRC)

Wes

> Date:          Mon, 16 Oct 95 11:29:27 -0500
> Reply-to:      radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> From:          "ALDEN N TSCHAECHE" <XAT@inel.gov>
> To:            Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject:       Re: linear hypothesis

>
> If Marv Goldman is correct, namely: the mitigation of tiny doses is not
> cost effective, why couldn't the NRC establish a BRC? I submit that,
> until the linear hypothesis is discredited and tossed in the trash, we
> will never be able to convince a regulator that tiny doses should not be
> avoided, no matter what the cost.


*********************************************************************
Wesley M. Dunn, C.H.P., Administrator      512-834-6688
Licensing Branch                           512-834-6690 (fax)
(Texas) Bureau of Radiation Control        wdunn@brc1.tdh.state.tx.us
*********************************************************************