RE: INS Laundry - Related Topic

["Lavera, Ron" <Ron.Lavera@nypa.gov>]

I would like to add that there is another societal detriment that is not
mentioned as a result of this type of legislation.  Every dollar that is
spent dealing with meaningless values of radiation that may ( of may not )
increase the risk of cancer, is DEFINITELY a reduction in the amount of
money available for improving other infrastructure items that can reduce the
mortality rate.  Some places I would like to see this money spent include
hospital emergency rooms, prenatal care centers and educational improvements
( after all, you need to be able to get a job to be a "healthy worker" ).

It would be nice to see a list that stated the "risk" to the public from
extraneous expenditures versus the risk from the projected exposure.

... mine and mine alone  ...

Ron LaVera
Lavera.r@nypa.gov

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Oldewage, Hans D [mailto:HDOLDEW@sandia.gov]
		Sent:	Monday, July 19, 1999 3:05 PM
		To:	Multiple recipients of list
		Subject:	INS Laundry - Related Topic

		Just a second while I get my soapbox - 
		Santa Fe is doing now what the City of Albuquerque did years
ago.
		Albuquerque's sewer use ordinance prohibits the discharge of
radioactive
		waste (no definition) to the sanitary sewer system.
Hospitals and medical
		clinics are exempt from the prohibition.  Why are they
exempt?  I don't
		know.  Anyway, Sandia National Labs and DOE have decided
that the ordinance
		is not worth fighting.  We want to be good neighbors (read
"conflict-free
		neighbors").  For some reason, several years ago the city
even contracted a
		health physicist to study the impact of, and propose changes
to, the
		ordinance that would allow discharging up to some fraction
of the NRC or DOE
		standards.  He did a great job and drafted a very workable
ordinance.
		Unfortunately, some portion of our City Council is up for
reelection just
		about every year, and this potato is too hot for those
politicians to
		address, so it remains tabled.

		Of course, with no lower limit attached to the ordinance, we
are forced to
		fumble around with waste water with analytical results
hovering around the
		critical level.  Trying to decide if there's really activity
there or not,
		etc.  And if the answer is that there is (or may be)
DOE-added radioactivity
		in the waste, then it gets handled as radioactive waste.
It's a huge waste
		of time and taxpayer money, with absolutely no quantifiable
benefit to
		public health, but what's new?   

		The sad part, other than wasting money of course, is that
our collective
		lack of will in fighting this ordinance only promotes the
perceptions that
		1) any exposure to radiation, no matter how small, poses a
risk; 2) that the
		risk from exposure to radiation, no matter how small, is
worth spending any
		amount of money to avoid; and 3) that the risk from
radiation varies somehow
		with who delivers the dose (be it God, the government, the
doctors, etc.).
		Good job.

		Three cheers for INS.  I hope they win their law suit.
Maybe somebody in
		our management, DOE, or in city government will take notice.

		Obviously only my opinion... 
		=====================
		Hans Oldewage
		Sandia National Laboratories
		505-845-7728
		hdoldew@sandia.gov


	
************************************************************************
		The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and
subscription
		information can be accessed at
http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html