Re: CRCPD Regulations for TENORM

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

Jonkers, Gert SIC-CTAN/2 wrote:
 
> NEED FOR SUCH REGULATIONS:

> ACTUAL HARM DONE:

> 'NUCLEAR AFFILIATION':

This is one of the most cogent discussions about the TENORM regulations
I have ever seen.  Thanks Gert.

However, I have one observation: Since the TENORM "problem" has been
recognized and the doses to people who handle TENORM have been
substantially reduced voluntarily (e.g. without any government
regulations), why now do we need regulations?  Why can't we continue to
do it voluntarily without government holding our hands?  Since there
doesn't seem to be any demonstratable harm even when the doses were not
reduced, why must we saddle the public with more costs of regulation for
no measurable health benefit?  Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html