However ... if I were selecting the subject heading at this point, I'd subtitle: "I'm alright Jack!!! Screw the rest of you..."
On Wed, 21 May 1997 PDepippo@aol.com wrote:
Is non-Ionizing radiation cumulative throughout one life and stored in the human body somewhere? The reason I'm asking now is due to a comment found in the article below...
Peter
---------------------
Forwarded message:
Subj: NRC To Allow Higher Radiation Level
Date: 97-05-21 18:51:56 EDT
From: AOL News
By H. JOSEF HEBERT WASHINGTON (AP)
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will allow radiation levels at the sites of dismantled nuclear power plants to be higher than the level ecommended by the Environmental Protection Agency. The NRC, in announcing its rule Wednesday, also did not set radiation levels in groundwater, which the EPA had urged the agency to do.
With a growing number of operating licenses expected to expire in the
coming decade, the nuclear industry has been awaiting federal standards
that would direct how clean reactor sites must be left, once a plant is
dismantled. There are 19 reactor licenses scheduled to expire over the
next
15 years. Many utilities, however, are likely to mothball closed power
plants for a number of years before dismantling them. The NRC said that
radiation levels at unrestricted reactor sites - land that would be free
for any uses - must be decontaminated so the property ``will be as far
below 25 millirems per year as is reasonably achievable.'' By comparison,
a person receives 2.5 millirems during a cross-country airline flight.
Exposure from natural radiation is about 300 millirems per year, according
to the NRC.
The EPA had urged the NRC to adopt a 15 millirems-a-year maximum and had recommended that the agency establish a requirement for a minimum of 4 millirem contamination in groundwater.
AP-NY-05-21-97 1842EDT
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 09:50:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@mail.llion.org>
To: PDepippo@aol.com Cc: tegen@feb.se, Emrall@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fwd: NRC To Allow Higher Radiation Level
Peter:
I think the important thing here is to keep in mind the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. From my days in the "atomic weapons" business, I know that the contamination problem there is caused by the fact that ionizing radiation changes the atomic structure of some of the other materials with which it comes into contact. That change in the atomic structure creates isotopes with long (half) live. They, in turn, sit there and continue to emit radiation (usually in the form of gamma rays or alpha particles) long thereafter. That is why strontium-90 (an isotope which gets into milk thru the ingestion of contaminated particles by the cows) is such a serious health concern. If such milk is consumed by people, the decaying alpha particles can remain in the body (doing damage) a very long time.
Non-ionizing radiation (EMF) does not create such atomic contamination. i.e., It does not sit around in the environment emitting active particles.... It's threat, therefore, can be eliminated by eliminating (or turning off) its source. (Or by moving far enough away from it.) No residual "contamination" will be present.
The action described in your message below... means to me that the "risk factor guys" have calculated that the cost of "totally" decontaminating the nuclear sites is not worth the costs. Which does say, of course, that some "harm" may result, but they have decided that the cost of dealing with it is not worth it...
That is very much the attitude one finds on the part of BOTH the government and the electric industry with respect to the "cost" of dealing with the leukemia threat to children living alongside power lines. The threat is there. And now they know ... and cannot deny it after the National Academy of Science Study. But they simply do not regard the "cost" worth the gain in children's health and lives....
Besides, (and this is important!!) it is unusual for the children affected to be the children of the "rich," the utility employees (or particularly the 'HIGH LEVEL") employees. Also, I have yet to find one RESEARCHER on this matter whose children live beside the power lines. Neither are there any children of the Congressmen (or key EPA, NIEHS, etc. bureaucrats) affected ... that I am aware of...
This lack of "threat" to the children of the "wealthocracy" that controls such political decisions ... in my view, largely explains the lack of urgency we are encountering on the EMF health threat.....
As my British wife often describes it: I'm alright, Jack!!! Screw the rest of you....(She tells me that is a well understood "saying" -- and attitude -- in Britain.)
Notice what happens, however, when the threat touches "the rich" ... as it does in that Joplin, Missouri power line case where the local doctors have become involved!!!!!! Their children are being threatened by the planned line. One must wonder (I do!!!) whether they would take such an active role in fighting that line ... if their children were not affected???
[I can tell you from first hand experience, the utility companies DO take such factors as the "quality" of the opposition into consideration when they consider where to build their lines (or cellular antennas). ***Do you remember, in fact, that one of the newspaper stories about that Joplin line brought to light the fact that the CEO of the power company may have made "a deal" to avoid the line being constructed on the property of one of his "rich" friends???*** He denied that in court, of course, but there are still some more court appearances likely in his future....]
Meanwhile, the rest of our society -- in that blissful "I'm alright Jack!" state of mind -- looks the other way.......
Cordially....(and thanks for your message)....
Cheerio,