Re: dose from airborne emissions

[Andrew Karam <karam.1@osu.edu>]

Dear Al,

When I worked for the Ohio Department of Health I used to get into
discussions with a friend (a rabid Libertarian) about my employer.  My
response was that no single individual has the ability to keep up on
EVERYTHING and, accordingly, cannot make informed decisions about most of
the things that can affect their health and safety.  Part of the role of
government is to do this; in effect, the people delegate to their
government these decisions, assuming that the government will carry out
this charge in good faith and to the best of their abilities.  

I understand that someone, somewhere has to set a limit and say that "Below
this level the risks are so trivial that we need not bother."  I do not
object to the existence of such an exemption level.  I do object to setting
such a limit so low as to have no technical or scientific justification.  I
especially object to that limit being blindly taken from federal
regulations and applied with a broad brush to all persons within the State
of Ohio, not just to NRC licensees.  And I object to this being done by a
person who, by his own admission, did not understand the possible
ramifications of this proposal.  

In my opinion, regulatory limits such as this cause as much or more harm
than they alleviate.  They do not serve to allay public fears, because the
public now thinks that a dose of 0.1 mrem per year might be harmful.  They
take resources away from other, more pressing problems.  In setting such a
broad and meaningless limit, the government does not serve its people.  The
responsibility delegated to, in this case, the Ohio EPA has been abused and
that agency has failed in one of the missions given it by the people of Ohio.

Every dollar, no matter how few, that is spent in writing, enforcing,
complying, or filing reports for a rule of this magnitude is a dollar taken
from some other, hopefully worthier purpose.  

According to Edmund Burke, "...a representative owes the People not only
his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to
their opinion."

I have no quarrel with setting a limit, I ask only that the limit make
sense, that it be applied where and when necessary, and that it be
justifiable by objective criteria.



Andrew Karam, CHP
karam.1@osu.edu

Ohio State University Radiation Safety Section
1314 Kinnear Road
Columbus, OH  43221
(614) 292-1284    	(614) 202-7002 (fax)