[cdn-nucl-l] Rockwell: No de-facto threshold at 100 mrem.

["Jerry Cuttler" <jerrycuttler@home.com>]

"The GAO report, and the testimony regarding it, did NOT cite any of the
evidence we gave them, showing no effect or beneficial effect."

It seems to be customary to ignore controversial evidence, but the GAO did
say that evidence of harm appears at 30,000 mrem.

Jerry Cuttler
------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Ted Rockwell <tedrock@cpcug.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list ans-pie <ans-pie@nuke-ans.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 2:43 PM
Subject: De facto threshold


Denis asked: Does this set a de facto threshold? [referring to GAO testimony
quoted below.]

The answer is NO--quite the opposite.  The GAO report, and the testimony
regarding it, did NOT cite any of the evidence we gave them, showing no
effect or beneficial effect.  The words you cited from the GAO author's boss
are very foxy.  The key words are: "Evidence of these effects is especially
lacking..."  The claim of lack of evidence is the only thing sustaining the
LNT.  Lack of evidence is not the same of evidence of lack.  If you are
speeding in your car toward a blind intersection, there will be lack of
evidence of any car coming.  But you can get "blindsided" by a speeding car
you couldn't see.

That's the only argument that LNT defenders can use, if they've reviewed and
understood the evidence.  The GAO report is not an honest report.

You talk about a 100mrem/yr threshold, but the NRC then assumes you'll get
three-quarters of your dose elsewhere, and that makes the threshold for us
just 25 mrem/yr.  (EPA's 15 comes about from a very different approach, but
the practical difference between those two numbers is trivial.  It's the 4
mrem/yr for water, based on EPA tapwater specs, that becomes really
unenforceable, especially in areas that nature makes non-compliant before we
even get there.)


Ted Rockwell
________________________

Testimony of Ms. Gary Jones

Associate Director
Energy, Resources, and Science Issues
General Accounting Office

"In summary:
· U.S. radiation standards for public protection lack a conclusively
verified scientific basis, according to a consensus of recognized
scientists. Below certain radiation exposure levels, the effects of
radiation are unproven, despite many years of research efforts. Evidence of
these effects is especially lacking at regulated public exposure
levels-levels of 100 millirem a year and below from human-generated
sources.[3]

ref 3 explains "A millirem is a commonly used unit of measurement of the
biological effect of radiation. The radiation from a routine chest X-ray is
equivalent to about 6 millirem."

does this set a de-facto threshold of 100 mrem that we can cite in future
reports?

full text and references are at
http://www.house.gov/science/jones_071800.htm

Denis Beller