Re: Browner vs. Jackson

[xat@inel.gov (Alden Tschaeche)]

JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com wrote:
> 
> 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"...

What's really funny about this "argument" is that it would set a de
minimis dose below which regulation is not required.  Isn't that what
the NRDC shot down a few years ago?  If the NRC and EPA were really
serious about reasonable regulation (as the NRC says it is), the
argument would be about the difference between 3 rem and 1 rem, not 30
mrem and 10 mrem.  We've got to get rid of the erroneous idea that a low
dose of ionizing radiation IS harmful!!!!!!  Al Tschaeche xat@inel.gov