Reply to: Observed biological effects vs regs -Reply

[MARK WINSLOW <WINSLOW.MARK@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV>]

I also disagree with the LNTM; at least when it comes to low RBE
radiation. I do however feel the LNTM seems appropriate for high RBE
radiation (internal alpha and neutrons).  Most people don't
understand that a human cell undergoes 10,000 DNA single strand
breaks in a given day from general respiration.  Low density
ionization trails cause by low RBE radiation causes similar damage
and is repaired fully in the same manner as natural breaks caused by
the strains of life.  This opinion however open's up a whole new bag
on how accurately quality factors follow RBE and such.

I also agree the NRC's regulations seems fair and safe.  And EPA's is
really wacky because it is for a chronic exposure which I believe is
even less harmful.  But I'm a new guy on the block at the EPA and it
will take me a long time to change anything (if ever).  Some of the
things I've seen in the drafts for Reg Guide 13 seem promising
though.

The end question is: How much are we as a society willing to pay to
stick to a conservative assumption when the data to support that
assumption is weak and based on 50 year old micro biology.

Mark P. Winslow, Environmental Engineer
US. EPA, Region II

The above comments are mine and mine alone.  Also the EPA has neither
seen nor approved of them.

PS.  Also we in Region II think EMF is a crock.