FW: Domenici Questions the LNTH -Reply

[Michael S Ford <MFORD@pantex.com>]

FYI.... there is ACTUALLY something going on in D.C. besides
political posturing for the next election....

Michael
mford@pantex.com

>>>>>>
FWD: from David Lee @ LANL
>>>>>>

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE   

CONTACT:  CHRIS GALLEGOS (202) 224-7098;
http://www.senate.gov/%7Edomenici/press>www.senate.gov/~domenici/press)

WASHINGTON

JULY 21, 1999

DOMENICI SEEKS RENEWED STUDY OF RADIATION
PROTECTION

(Outcome of GAO Investigation Could Have Long-term Policy
Affects)

U.S. Senator Pete Domenici has asked the General Accounting
Office (GAO) to update a 1994 study on radiation protection in the
United States, pointing out that the agency should examine the
validity of standards on which current policies are based.  Domenici
made the request in a letter to the GAO, citing his concerns about
the cost impact of the so-called linear no threshold hypothesis
(LNTH) as it is applied to radiation protection standards in the
United States. The LNTH assumes that any amount of radiation,
regardless of how small, can cause health effects such as cancer.

This theory forms the basis of all radiation protection standards, and
results in regulations that limit radiation to people to very low levels. 

Domenici asked that the GAO's 1994 report,"Consensus on
Acceptable Radiation Risk to the Public Is Lacking"
(GAO/RCED-94-190), be updated and suggested areas for
investigation.  The request was made to David A. Walker,
Comptroller General of the United States, U.S. General Accounting
Office.

"The 1994 report, which discusses many of the radiation protection
regulation issues, does not question the validity of the LNTH,"
Domenici said.  "I am interested in knowing whether questions
being raised about the validity of the LNTH are being carefully and
adequately addressed in studies devoted to improvements in the
scientific bases for radiation protection standards."

"The linear no threshold hypothesis is now questioned by many
scientists and health professionals, who assert radiation doses
below certain levels, a threshold,  may have no deleterious health
effects at all.  If radiation protection standards are unnecessarily
restrictive, the impact on the costs of high level waste
disposal--such as Yucca Mountain, low-level waste disposal, power
plant decommissioning and decontamination, and DOE's
environmental cleanup could be huge," he said.  Domenici asked
that the GAO give particular attention to these questions:

(1)  How have radiation standards changed since 1994?  Is a
consensus being approached, and what has resulted from the
recommendations in that report?

(2)  What were the bases for setting the radiation protection limits,
and how is the linear no threshold hypothesis used in setting these
limits?  

(3)  If differences exist between agencys' standards, what is the
impact of these differences?

(4)  Provide, from available data, information on the variance in
background radiation between locations in the United States and
around the world.  Are differences in cancer rates between these
locations related to differences in background radiation levels?

(5)  What are the costs of complying with current radiation
protection regulations, and how, if at all, would these costs be
affected if radiation standards were substantially relaxed?

The Congress approved $12 million to begin determining the
cellular and biological effects of low-level radiation--the sort nuclear
power plant and clean-up workers are exposed to--in order to
develop appropriate radiation protection standards.  As chairman of
the Senate appropriations subcommittee that funds the Department
of Energy, Domenici is working to continue funding for this
research.

END OF MESSAGE FROM SENATOR DOMENICI

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