NRC-2015-0057, Comment (581) of Craig Chartier on PRM-20-28, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30 - Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) Created page by program invented by StriderTol |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) Created page by program invented by StriderTol |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter: | {{#Wiki_filter:Rulemaking1CEm Resource From: RulemakingComments Resource Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 8:17 AM To: Rulemaking1CEm Resource | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Comment on PRM-20-18, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30 Attachments: | Comment on PRM-20-18, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30 Attachments: NRC-2015-0057-DRAFT-0529.pdf DOCKETED BY USNRCOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY SECY-067 PR#: PRM-20-28, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30 FRN#: 80FR35870 NRC DOCKET#: NRC-2015-0057 SECY DOCKET DATE: 11/17/15 TITLE: Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation COMMENT#: 581 1 | ||
NRC-2015-0057-DRAFT-0529.pdf DOCKETED BY | |||
Hearing Identifier: | Hearing Identifier: Secy_RuleMaking_comments_Public Email Number: 1390 Mail Envelope Properties (0c64ebe47c2c4abc859a4240d05f275d) | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Comment on PRM-20-18, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30 | Comment on PRM-20-18, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30 Sent Date: 11/25/2015 8:16:31 AM Received Date: 11/25/2015 8:16:32 AM From: RulemakingComments Resource Created By: RulemakingComments.Resource@nrc.gov Recipients: | ||
"Rulemaking1CEm Resource" <Rulemaking1CEm.Resource@nrc.gov> | |||
Tracking Status: None Post Office: HQPWMSMRS02.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 298 11/25/2015 8:16:32 AM NRC-2015-0057-DRAFT-0529.pdf 66663 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: | |||
Recipients Received: | |||
Page 1 of 1 As of: 11/23/15 2:04 PM Received: November 17, 2015 Status: Pending_Post PUBLIC SUBMISSION Tracking No. 1jz-8mb5-8z1s Comments Due: November 19, 2015 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2015-0057 Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation Comment On: NRC-2015-0057-0086 Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation; Extension of Comment Period Document: NRC-2015-0057-DRAFT-0529 Comment on FR Doc # 2015-20722 Submitter Information Name: Craig Chartier General Comment Advocating to permit more exposure to radiation is akin to arguing that humans need more lead in their blood stream. I am flabbergasted that this issue is seriously being discussed or considered. | |||
November 17, 2015 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. | |||
1jz-8mb5-8z1s Comments Due: | |||
November 19, 2015 Submission Type: | |||
Web Docket: NRC-2015-0057 Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation Comment On: | |||
NRC-2015-0057-0086 Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation; Extension of Comment Period Document: | |||
NRC-2015-0057-DRAFT-0529 Comment on FR Doc # 2015-20722 Submitter Information Name: Craig Chartier General Comment Advocating to permit more exposure to radiation is akin to arguing that humans need more lead in their blood stream. I am flabbergasted that this issue is seriously being discussed or considered. | |||
These safety standards have been in place since the 1950's (when the consequences of radiation exposure were plain to see). | These safety standards have been in place since the 1950's (when the consequences of radiation exposure were plain to see). | ||
Perhaps, consider an alternative view point: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/08/radiation-is-good-for-you-and-other-tall-tales-of-the-nuclear-industry/I live in close proximity to Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, the age of which is worrisome enough. I have no desire to worry that the aging plant will be permitted to release more radiation into the surrounding environment, which is precisely what will happen if the new standards are adopted.There is no safe level of radiation. I hear this every time I go to the doctor for a evaluation of the sun damage to my skin. It's the reason I do not have dental x-rays on every visit for a cleaning. | Perhaps, consider an alternative view point: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/08/radiation-is-good-for-you-and-other-tall-tales-of-the-nuclear-industry/ | ||
Yes, it is safe to assume, that if I had a vote, it would be a resounding "no". | I live in close proximity to Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, the age of which is worrisome enough. I have no desire to worry that the aging plant will be permitted to release more radiation into the surrounding environment, which is precisely what will happen if the new standards are adopted. | ||
There is no safe level of radiation. I hear this every time I go to the doctor for a evaluation of the sun damage to my skin. It's the reason I do not have dental x-rays on every visit for a cleaning. | |||
Yes, it is safe to assume, that if I had a vote, it would be a resounding "no". | |||
file:///C:/Users/CAG/Documents/XPMigratedFolders/PRM-20-28/NRC-2015-0057-DRAFT-0529.html 11/23/2015 | |||
Rulemaking1CEm Resource From: RulemakingComments Resource Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 8:17 AM To: Rulemaking1CEm Resource | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Comment on PRM-20-18, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30 Attachments: | Comment on PRM-20-18, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30 Attachments: NRC-2015-0057-DRAFT-0529.pdf DOCKETED BY USNRCOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY SECY-067 PR#: PRM-20-28, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30 FRN#: 80FR35870 NRC DOCKET#: NRC-2015-0057 SECY DOCKET DATE: 11/17/15 TITLE: Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation COMMENT#: 581 1 | ||
NRC-2015-0057-DRAFT-0529.pdf DOCKETED BY | |||
Hearing Identifier: | Hearing Identifier: Secy_RuleMaking_comments_Public Email Number: 1390 Mail Envelope Properties (0c64ebe47c2c4abc859a4240d05f275d) | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Comment on PRM-20-18, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30 | Comment on PRM-20-18, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30 Sent Date: 11/25/2015 8:16:31 AM Received Date: 11/25/2015 8:16:32 AM From: RulemakingComments Resource Created By: RulemakingComments.Resource@nrc.gov Recipients: | ||
"Rulemaking1CEm Resource" <Rulemaking1CEm.Resource@nrc.gov> | |||
Tracking Status: None Post Office: HQPWMSMRS02.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 298 11/25/2015 8:16:32 AM NRC-2015-0057-DRAFT-0529.pdf 66663 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: | |||
Recipients Received: | |||
Page 1 of 1 As of: 11/23/15 2:04 PM Received: November 17, 2015 Status: Pending_Post PUBLIC SUBMISSION Tracking No. 1jz-8mb5-8z1s Comments Due: November 19, 2015 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2015-0057 Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation Comment On: NRC-2015-0057-0086 Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation; Extension of Comment Period Document: NRC-2015-0057-DRAFT-0529 Comment on FR Doc # 2015-20722 Submitter Information Name: Craig Chartier General Comment Advocating to permit more exposure to radiation is akin to arguing that humans need more lead in their blood stream. I am flabbergasted that this issue is seriously being discussed or considered. | |||
November 17, 2015 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. | |||
1jz-8mb5-8z1s Comments Due: | |||
November 19, 2015 Submission Type: | |||
Web Docket: NRC-2015-0057 Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation Comment On: | |||
NRC-2015-0057-0086 Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation; Extension of Comment Period Document: | |||
NRC-2015-0057-DRAFT-0529 Comment on FR Doc # 2015-20722 Submitter Information Name: Craig Chartier General Comment Advocating to permit more exposure to radiation is akin to arguing that humans need more lead in their blood stream. I am flabbergasted that this issue is seriously being discussed or considered. | |||
These safety standards have been in place since the 1950's (when the consequences of radiation exposure were plain to see). | These safety standards have been in place since the 1950's (when the consequences of radiation exposure were plain to see). | ||
Perhaps, consider an alternative view point: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/08/radiation-is-good-for-you-and-other-tall-tales-of-the-nuclear-industry/I live in close proximity to Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, the age of which is worrisome enough. I have no desire to worry that the aging plant will be permitted to release more radiation into the surrounding environment, which is precisely what will happen if the new standards are adopted.There is no safe level of radiation. I hear this every time I go to the doctor for a evaluation of the sun damage to my skin. It's the reason I do not have dental x-rays on every visit for a cleaning. | Perhaps, consider an alternative view point: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/08/radiation-is-good-for-you-and-other-tall-tales-of-the-nuclear-industry/ | ||
Yes, it is safe to assume, that if I had a vote, it would be a resounding "no". | I live in close proximity to Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, the age of which is worrisome enough. I have no desire to worry that the aging plant will be permitted to release more radiation into the surrounding environment, which is precisely what will happen if the new standards are adopted. | ||
There is no safe level of radiation. I hear this every time I go to the doctor for a evaluation of the sun damage to my skin. It's the reason I do not have dental x-rays on every visit for a cleaning. | |||
Yes, it is safe to assume, that if I had a vote, it would be a resounding "no". | |||
file:///C:/Users/CAG/Documents/XPMigratedFolders/PRM-20-28/NRC-2015-0057-DRAFT-0529.html 11/23/2015}} | |||
Revision as of 04:07, 31 October 2019
| ML15329A091 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 11/17/2015 |
| From: | Chartier C - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | NRC/SECY/RAS |
| References | |
| 80FR35870 00581, NRC-2015-0057, PRM-20-28, PRM-20-29, PRM-20-30 | |
| Download: ML15329A091 (3) | |
Text
Rulemaking1CEm Resource From: RulemakingComments Resource Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 8:17 AM To: Rulemaking1CEm Resource
Subject:
Comment on PRM-20-18, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30 Attachments: NRC-2015-0057-DRAFT-0529.pdf DOCKETED BY USNRCOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY SECY-067 PR#: PRM-20-28, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30 FRN#: 80FR35870 NRC DOCKET#: NRC-2015-0057 SECY DOCKET DATE: 11/17/15 TITLE: Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation COMMENT#: 581 1
Hearing Identifier: Secy_RuleMaking_comments_Public Email Number: 1390 Mail Envelope Properties (0c64ebe47c2c4abc859a4240d05f275d)
Subject:
Comment on PRM-20-18, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30 Sent Date: 11/25/2015 8:16:31 AM Received Date: 11/25/2015 8:16:32 AM From: RulemakingComments Resource Created By: RulemakingComments.Resource@nrc.gov Recipients:
"Rulemaking1CEm Resource" <Rulemaking1CEm.Resource@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office: HQPWMSMRS02.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 298 11/25/2015 8:16:32 AM NRC-2015-0057-DRAFT-0529.pdf 66663 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:
Page 1 of 1 As of: 11/23/15 2:04 PM Received: November 17, 2015 Status: Pending_Post PUBLIC SUBMISSION Tracking No. 1jz-8mb5-8z1s Comments Due: November 19, 2015 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2015-0057 Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation Comment On: NRC-2015-0057-0086 Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation; Extension of Comment Period Document: NRC-2015-0057-DRAFT-0529 Comment on FR Doc # 2015-20722 Submitter Information Name: Craig Chartier General Comment Advocating to permit more exposure to radiation is akin to arguing that humans need more lead in their blood stream. I am flabbergasted that this issue is seriously being discussed or considered.
These safety standards have been in place since the 1950's (when the consequences of radiation exposure were plain to see).
Perhaps, consider an alternative view point: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/08/radiation-is-good-for-you-and-other-tall-tales-of-the-nuclear-industry/
I live in close proximity to Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, the age of which is worrisome enough. I have no desire to worry that the aging plant will be permitted to release more radiation into the surrounding environment, which is precisely what will happen if the new standards are adopted.
There is no safe level of radiation. I hear this every time I go to the doctor for a evaluation of the sun damage to my skin. It's the reason I do not have dental x-rays on every visit for a cleaning.
Yes, it is safe to assume, that if I had a vote, it would be a resounding "no".
file:///C:/Users/CAG/Documents/XPMigratedFolders/PRM-20-28/NRC-2015-0057-DRAFT-0529.html 11/23/2015
Rulemaking1CEm Resource From: RulemakingComments Resource Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 8:17 AM To: Rulemaking1CEm Resource
Subject:
Comment on PRM-20-18, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30 Attachments: NRC-2015-0057-DRAFT-0529.pdf DOCKETED BY USNRCOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY SECY-067 PR#: PRM-20-28, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30 FRN#: 80FR35870 NRC DOCKET#: NRC-2015-0057 SECY DOCKET DATE: 11/17/15 TITLE: Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation COMMENT#: 581 1
Hearing Identifier: Secy_RuleMaking_comments_Public Email Number: 1390 Mail Envelope Properties (0c64ebe47c2c4abc859a4240d05f275d)
Subject:
Comment on PRM-20-18, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30 Sent Date: 11/25/2015 8:16:31 AM Received Date: 11/25/2015 8:16:32 AM From: RulemakingComments Resource Created By: RulemakingComments.Resource@nrc.gov Recipients:
"Rulemaking1CEm Resource" <Rulemaking1CEm.Resource@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office: HQPWMSMRS02.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 298 11/25/2015 8:16:32 AM NRC-2015-0057-DRAFT-0529.pdf 66663 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:
Page 1 of 1 As of: 11/23/15 2:04 PM Received: November 17, 2015 Status: Pending_Post PUBLIC SUBMISSION Tracking No. 1jz-8mb5-8z1s Comments Due: November 19, 2015 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2015-0057 Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation Comment On: NRC-2015-0057-0086 Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation; Extension of Comment Period Document: NRC-2015-0057-DRAFT-0529 Comment on FR Doc # 2015-20722 Submitter Information Name: Craig Chartier General Comment Advocating to permit more exposure to radiation is akin to arguing that humans need more lead in their blood stream. I am flabbergasted that this issue is seriously being discussed or considered.
These safety standards have been in place since the 1950's (when the consequences of radiation exposure were plain to see).
Perhaps, consider an alternative view point: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/08/radiation-is-good-for-you-and-other-tall-tales-of-the-nuclear-industry/
I live in close proximity to Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, the age of which is worrisome enough. I have no desire to worry that the aging plant will be permitted to release more radiation into the surrounding environment, which is precisely what will happen if the new standards are adopted.
There is no safe level of radiation. I hear this every time I go to the doctor for a evaluation of the sun damage to my skin. It's the reason I do not have dental x-rays on every visit for a cleaning.
Yes, it is safe to assume, that if I had a vote, it would be a resounding "no".
file:///C:/Users/CAG/Documents/XPMigratedFolders/PRM-20-28/NRC-2015-0057-DRAFT-0529.html 11/23/2015