Re: FWD>TMI decision---quick su

["Wesley M. Dunn" <WDUNN@brc1.tdh.state.tx.us>]

Just a few quick comments before we all get carried away.  While
I agree this was an important case, some of Mr. Fox's excitement
about the TMI decision needs a little tempering:

One court case does not a law make.  It does makes a legal precedent,
albeit a weak one.  Any other judge is welcome to accept or ignore
these determinations in another case.  The real key is whether it gets
appealed or not.  Appellate decisions are binding on all lower courts
in that district (and was this a State or Federal Court?)

The finding has absolutely nothing to do with the regulatory
environment.  Different worlds.  The exception would be if the public
suddenly understands that a 1 mrem exposure to man-made radiation
isn't going to kill you immediately.  In this case, the pressure on
the regulatory agencies to continue ratcheting on radiation
dose may be relieved.  Remember, radiation is treated differently
because the PUBLIC thinks that low level radiation exposure is
deadly.  If that perception goes away, regulatory bodies may be
allowed to limit their efforts to actual hazards, not perceived
hazards.  Maybe Ward Valley gets built some day after all.

Also, just because 10 rem can cause harm doesn't mean that 9
rem can't.  70 years * 100 mrem = 7 rem.  That's within the ballpark.
The key, of course, is that the limits are being based on the
assuption that EVERYONE gets that 100 mrem each and every year, as
opposed to a sub-class of individuals who COULD receive 100 mrem in
any one year.  Apples and Oranges from a public health standpoint.
And the case does nothing about EPA's 10E-6.

Wes


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