Re[2]: EPA report and court ruling -Reply

[MICHAEL S FORD <MFORD@pantex.com>]

Before everyone gets riled up about the judges decision in this
case, please note that the judge, in his 60 page decision, castigated
the EPA for violating their own procedural rules regarding these
types of studies, issuing a position and then "cherry-picking" the
data that support the position, and then writing a report that, in the
words of some of the EPA's august review panel members, was not
supported by the body of the data.

The judge also cited the fact that EPA's report, while not a law in
itself, was a defacto law as viewed by states, municipalities, and
businesses that sought to avoid litigation on the grounds that
second-hand smoke exposure causes cancer.  Now... what about
low-level radiation exposure and cancer?

It is interesting to view FGR No. 13 in this light -- especially given
EPA's repeated statements that it is only a "guidance" document. 
Despite what EPA says, this too will become defacto law if it is ever
issued in final form.

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
*************************
P.S. - I don't smoke and I really DO like the absence of cigarette
smoke in most public areas!