[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: FGR-13 -Reply



Actually, the chemical regulators learned about the linear model from 
radiation, i.e., one molecule in one cell, etc. and many TLVs went away.  I 
heartily agree, let's go back to TLVs and doses for everything and drop the 
LNT.

Sorry, Jesse C.  This does not mean I want to start any LNT battles, but 
then, I have not stopped.  Yes, I believe HEAST is available on the NET but 
I don't know where.

Joe Alvarez
Auxier & Assoc
jalvarez@auxier.com

-----Original Message-----
From:	MICHAEL S FORD [SMTP:MFORD@pantex.com]
Sent:	Wednesday, May 13, 1998 10:39 AM
To:	Multiple recipients of list
Subject:	RE: FGR-13 -Reply

>>>"Joe Alvarez" wrote on Wed 13 May 98  7:57 >>>
... Indeed, EPA maintains that radiation is a privileged pollutant
because dose rather than risk is the standard for regulation.
FGR-13 being risk-based will remove the previledge....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Let's see.... that wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that there
are known, demonstrable effects from chemicals exposures at the
levels the risk factors are based upon, whereas such is not the case
for the limits at which occupational radiation exposures are set.
Would it?

EPA has yet to demonstrate that there is any risk associated with
"per Bq" exposures of (enhanced) radioactive materials.  They claim
the pedigrees of the ICRP and NCRP, but ignore UNSCEAR and
even the qualifications of the ICRP/NCRP data where the possible
"no effect" is discussed in the context of LNT.  This is selective
science, not "sound science," as FGR-13 claims.

If they really want to even the playing field, let's talk about
Threshold Limit Values for chemicals AND rad. materials.

In my humble opinion,
v/r
Michael
*************************
Michael S. Ford, CHP
Texas Radiation Advisory Board
Address:
Radiation Safety Department
Battelle Pantex
Amarillo, TX
806.477.5727 phone
806.477.4198 fax
mford@pantex.com
*************************