Re: Regz for Sediment

[stephens@lamar.ColoState.EDU (John Stephens)]

On Wed, 10 Jan 96, stephens@lamar.ColoState.EDU (John Stephens) wrote:
>
>    I would like to ask if anyone recognizes that there are 2
>fundamentally different ways to regulate environmental contamination?
>and in particular for the radionuclides in the sediment (I did my
>thesis on Sr and Cs in sediments).

And Paul Charp sent...
I agree that there are several ways of regulating contamination: real
(measurements) and imaginary (risk).  The current proposal of 0.15 mSv/y is
supposed to orrespond to a risk of 10E-4 which approximates the upper end of
Superfund risk numbers.

    I thought 500 mrem corresponded to 10E-4 risk of getting cancer? So
100 mrem/yr is a conservative number for the public. (0.02 /Sv from ICRP?)
First, I would point out that there is some level of risk that is in
the NOISE, that is the science itself can not tell if there is gonna
be an effect below that level, i.e. it like looking for a
Fart-Ina-Hurricane.  I don't see why they should make the dose limit
15 mrem/yr!
    Personally, I prefer a risk based limit, even if it is imaginary.
This is because the best-available-technology regz like regulating
aroung the detectable limit are some of the most expensive ways to
regulate. Also, BATs carry the connotation that any amount is bad,
which is far removed from any sort of science involved. On the other
hand, a measurement limit would be useful to circumvent the 20+ year
assesment like at Yucca Mtn.
    And I don't see how the public influences the development of
regz, certainly not directly.  The radiation protection community
is responsible for developing the new regulations!

john stephens