Re: RADIUM ORE REVIGATOR

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Jim Williams writes:

> 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 

None. See, eg, the wonderful work and presentations being made around the
country by the incoming HPS President Dr. Otto Raabe! From the beagle data,
confirming the CHR human radiobiology data from the radium dial-painters and
others, especially iatrogenic radium body-burden people, and the thousands who 
ingested Radithor (1 uCi Ra-226 + 1 uCi Ra-228 per vial, 3.5 uCi
Ra-226-eq/vial, and other radium waters and elixers - plus high natural radium 
sources) there is a dramatic threshold. 

Also according to Robley Evans doing the Invited Summary of the 1981 Int'l
Conf (HPJ Vol 44, Suppl 1, 1983, ed by Gen Roessler, p572) the intake
threshold, from all the data in the CHR and from the UK, Germany, Japan, and
some from elsewhere, is about 50 uCi 'systemic uptake' (which is 250 uCi
ingestion at 20% uptake as established by the CHR). Note of course that DOE
essentially closed the program in 1983! which was set up in 1969/70 at Robley
Evans' retirement from MIT to be 'immortal' for the life of the pre-1950 dial
painters!? (See eg, Bob Rowland's 'oral history' in the DOE Human Rad
Experiments 'study' available on the web.) It was wrapped up, over several
years (with a strong message to other researchers and programs, esp RERF, who
would consider investigating, much less reporting, contradictory evidence. 

> 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.

Actually, courts dealing with radiation liability cases since the 70's, right
up to Judge Rambo dismissing the TMI suit with findings on the *evidentiary
record*, consistently make findings of fact that there is no basis to consider 
that radiation is harmful (usually something like "below 10 rad" or reflecting 
the dose in the case). In fact some Judge's call witnesses that have testified 
that rad is harmful to low doses frauds and near-criminals, like Judge Kelly
on KZ Morgan and John Gofman. If we cared about the data instead of rad
protection for its own sake, we'd recognize the truth of Lauiston Taylor's
1980 comment that such a position "is an immoral use of our scientific
heritage" and the radiobiologist Gunnar Walinder's, student of Rolf Sievert,
1970s-80s member of UNSCEAR, in distributing his book "Has Radiation
Protection Become a Health Hazard?" with the comment: "I do not hesitate to
say that this is the greatest scientific scandal of the century". 

>         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. 

Irrelevant to liability lawsuits. What rad protection money is spent is done
because of fraud on risks, that the HPS has had the courage to begin to
correct, and the self-interest of regulators, with corporate fear of, as one
Exec VP said quite specifically, "regulatory retribution" of arguing against
regulators (along with "professional advice" from the rad protection staff
that "we can do it (just send more money)" instead of being part of a
responsible organization management that would try to control costs in a
private enterprize. 

Those are the real costs, not lawsuits for liability. Most such costs are set
up to just pass to taxpayers and ratepayers, like utilities just getting
capital costs in the ratebase, or in medicine, sending it to insurance
companies. Why argue with the regulators? New "competitiveness" environment
may change the attitudes - will HPS step up with new understanding (and
training in the biology that has been missing from gov't driven education
standards)? 

> 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!

Not really relevant. Reg cleanup standards are ratcheted for bureaucratic
authority and fund-raising interests, not for risks. Its not relevant to
liability lawsuits that rely on actual standards of evidence of harm.
(Environmental lawsuits based on complying with "standards", which ignore the
data and only count "compliance", are a different story, but that doesn't seem 
to apply to a revigator.) 

>         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 

Not until the rules change. And not until HPs understand the message of its
knowledgeable Presidents rather than its "regulatory policies" and rules
instead of science and evidence. No one who undertands the biological
evidence, nor the epidemiology, can supports the LNT. This will happen more
quickly than one can expect, hopefully before and without serious damage to
the integrity of science and practitioners, unless the public sees the costs
and consequences of this scandal. Once that happens th politicians that have
been demanding to be told that radiation is harmful will be turning on a dime
to point to those that have been "misleading me". 

> 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.

Again, just a 'regulatory initiative' to keep authority and jobs. The pay's
good? They say the same in the mafia :-)  And industries and scientists who
"go along", most of which are costs foisted on the gullible public, whose
interests are not protected (until the HPS statement :-)  (Most of us are
going to want to be at the front of the column at the turning point  :-) 
Don't get caught defending the indefensible as the wind changes.  

>         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.

I don't think you're "protecting the store owner". But you will note that I
primarily reacted to the statement that the revigator should be "disposed of
by the state" (presuming risk). 

>         Jim Williams
>         NARM@Worldnet.att.com

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com
Radiation, Science, and Health, Inc.