[ RadSafe ] query

[jjcohen at prodigy.net]

Dear Bernie,
    To answer your query, you may pick either or both of the following:

1] Vested self interest-- if there were no LNT, there would be no
justification for ALARA, collective dose, or 15 mrem/a dose limits. Come to
think of it, there would also be no need for ICRP, NCRP, BEIR, NRC,etc. Self
preservation is a fundamental characteristic of bureaucracies

2) Embarrassment--- Casting aside LNT would be a tacit admission that these
select advisory group were wrong and had given erroneous guidance for
decades. It would also be an acknowledgement that vast expenditures made
pursuant to this guidance were really unnecessary.

Jerry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bernard Cohen" <blc+ at pitt.edu>
To: "RadiatSafety" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 8:05 AM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] query


>     Considering the opinions expressed on Radsafe and in the recent poll
> on validity of LNT, I cannot help but wonder how all the members of the
> BEIR VII Committee could unanimously sign off on endorsing LNT. Can
> anyone offer an explanation for this? Does anyone know how members of
> the Committee were chosen? I cannot help but suspect that their favoring
> LNT was an element in their selection.
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/