Re: Joint Commission Report - public health risks

[xat@inel.gov (Alden Tschaeche)]

Sandy Perle wrote:


>  In releasing the report Tuesday, the commission's chairman is calling
>   upon Congress to shift the focus of laws such as the Clean Air Act
> from the regulation of specific contaminants to a wider view of
> overall air quality.

We need a US Department of Safety.  Much as I hate the Federal
Govenment's current Agency set up, there is too little coordination
among the various agencies with respect to setting safety standards. 
Somehow nuclear safety, transportation safety, chemical safety, food
safety, environmental safety, occupational safety, etc., etc. need to be
on an equal footing vis-a-vis standards, budget, etc.
At least then the public would be able to see how various risks compare
and where the biggest improvement overall in safety can be obtained for
each tax dollar spent.  I agree.  We are too piecemeal now.

 Much of risk assessment involves value judgment, and Omenn
> said when scientists extrapolate beyond their experiments they need to
> be overly cautious.

Seems to me we are getting into the mode of: you are guilty until proven
innocent instead of: you are innocent until proven guilty.  Sure, we
have made mistakes using the latter philosophy.  But the cost of the
former is breaking the bank.  We need a good middle ground.  Realistic,
not conservative (e.g. "overly cautious") seems to me to be a better
philosophy.
>  Omenn says, ``The public's in as good a position to debate as the
> experts. Common sense counts for a lot.''

Common sense counts when one has all the facts.  The public does not
always have any of the facts when the media, from which the public gets
the "facts" continues to present one sided information.  Alar, dioxin,
radiation come immediately to mind.  Remember, poverty is the biggest
killer of humans.  Does this proposal address that problem?

Al Tschaeche xat@inel.gov