Re: Browner vs. Jackson

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Amen, Al, but add "NCRP" to "NRDC" since Sinclair even stated publically that
NRC not be allowed 10 mr/yr as a de minimis dose! And there was apparently
more "behind the scenes" communications from others. 

Regards, Jim
 
> 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