Browner vs. Jackson

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Perhaps I didn't read this right, but is this really about the difference
between NRC's 30 mr/yr and EPA's 10 mr/yr? What's the difference? Like using
Gofman as a straw man to misdirect the public about the "debate", the NRC/EPA
"debate" seems disingenuous. It's hardly NRC trying "an attempt to consider
risk and reality"... 

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com

> In regards to the letter from Administrator Browner to Commisioner Jackson 
> (2/7 /97)
> 
> It's unfortunate that a vast majority of the public will not understand the 
> real basis for this disagreement.  The NRC's regulations are an attempt to 
> consider risk and reality as a basis for a regulatory foundation, while the 
> EPA continues to use political posturing as its basis.
> 
> While the EPA fights with the NRC and numerous other parties over 
> radioactive pollutants at levels with no credible risk to any real person 
> (IMO), millions of tons of truly hazardous materials are being dumped into 
> our air and water each day.  The effluent streams from thousands of 
> factories and combustion-based power plants are hazardous,  not at some 
> esoteric E-4 risk level from consumption levels that would challenge 
> livestock, but IDLH (Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health).   
> 
> If the EPA and NRC  top management were threatened with being subjected to 
> the effluents from the worst facilities they regulate,  that would put risk 
> in a perspective that the public might better understand.   
> 
> While I do not favor or support the consideration of economics to the 
> detriment of this or future generations, a detriment should be credible to 
> impose regulation.
> 
> The above is the opinion of the author, and in no way reflects those of his 
> employer ( I think).
> 
> Brian Rees
> brees@lanl.gov