RE: [riskanal] Lack of Risk Data

["Weiner, Ruth" <rfweine@sandia.gov>]

Barbara's point is very well taken.  Add environmental litigation, and the
problem is exemplified by the (ancient) history of the EPA standards for
ionizing radiation exposure.  Under pressure by Congress and environmental
groups, radioactive materials were included as hazardous substances under
Sec. 112 on the Clean Air Act in about 1983.  EPA issued a statement in 1984
that there was not enough information available on which to base a standard.
EPA was promptly taken to court by one of the enviro legal groups and forced
to come up with standards, part of which ended up as 40 CFR 191.


Clearly only my own opinion

Ruth F. Weiner, Ph. D.
Sandia National Laboratories 
MS 0718, POB 5800
Albuquerque, NM 87185-0718
505-844-4791; fax 505-844-0244
rfweine@sandia.gov


-----Original Message-----
From: BLHamrick@aol.com [mailto:BLHamrick@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, August 30, 1999 11:12 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: [riskanal] Lack of Risk Data


 Alfred Brooks wrote:

<<Thr regulators don't have enough data to determine if I am really at risk 
but
they do have enough data to spend $1.6 billion of the taxpayers' money and
destroy my property.>>

In a message dated 08/28/1999 1:41:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
faseiler@nmia.com writes:

<< You hit the nail right on the head!  This is precisely the point that a
 lot of people try to avoid with an excessive amount of smart verbiage.
 They do not have enough hard science, not enough to know how to
 evaluate this -- maybe it is and maybe it ain't -- kind of risk, but they
 sure know enough on how to throw away billions of taxpayer dollars.
 So they go with what they know and throw!  UGLY!!! >>

While it is fun to blame the regulators...There is another piece to this 
puzzle, and that is the politicians (ultimately the taxpayers themselves)...

Politicians are pressured by moneyed lobbying groups.  They enact laws that 
are not scientifically defensible, then hand the responsibility for 
enforcement to the agencies.  Sometimes the agencies literally don't do 
anything, or try desperately to interpret and enforce an unreasonable
statute 
in a reasonable manner, and when someone notices, they are taken to 
task....Sometimes they try to enforce the laws as written no matter how 
absurd...In either case, they are usually the ones who take the heat in the 
press.

I would be the first one to jump on the "governmental agencies need to be 
accountable" bandwagon, if there were comparable accountability demanded of 
the politicians who won their election on some pie in the sky campaign 
promise of absolute protection from radiation exposure...or other such 
nonsense.

Barbara Hamrick
BLHamrick@aol.com
************************************************************************
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