Re: RADIUM ORE REVIGATOR

[Jim Williams <NARM@Worldnet.att.com>]

JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com wrote:
> 
> Jim Williams writes:
> 
> about "disposing" of revigators!? Imagine destroying such a find. We'd throw
> out paintings with a little arsenic in the paint? :-)
> 
> Note that the HPS states clearly and with certainty: the data demonstrate that
> doses <5 rem/year, 10 rem lifetime, very conservatively, can not justify
> assigning/calculating any risk. Do do anything else is wasteful and
> destructive. Especially for items of such value. :-)
> 
> Regards, Jim Muckerheide
> jmuckerheide@delphi.com
> =======================


	I agree that the radiation risk of the revigator is slight, if 
any. The real risk is the potential legal and public relations risk to 
the store owner. Imagine a lawyer representing a mother who bought the 
revigator and put her infant's formula in it. The jury award could 
easily be millions. In addition, the store owner's insurance policy 
probably excludes radiation risks.

	I know that this seems a little far fetched, but the risk of 
being sued is very real. Just ask any oil company how much they spend 
each year on cleaning up old production sites for radium contamination. 
Most of these cleanups, depending on what state your in, are lawsuit 
driven, not regulatory driven. Some sites have had cleanup standards as 
low as 5 pCi/gram, INCLUDING BACKGROUND!

	The business of radioactive waste management is driven by many 
factors. From a purely scientific, risk based approach, we have already 
wasted too much bandwitch discussing this situation. However, in the 
real world, many other factors have to be considered. Just ask any of 
the present owners of the 1000's of facilities that were previously 
"free released" by the NRC and then "re-remediated" years later.

	Placing this revigator in a museum is a perfect solution. Having 
the state/commonwealth take possesion of it an acceptable solution. 
Leaving the store owner in the dark is just plain wrong.

	Jim Williams
	NARM@Worldnet.att.com