AW: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Chernobyl's Reduced Impact

[BLHamrick at aol.com]

In a message dated 9/14/2005 7:45:56 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
Rainer.Facius at dlr.de writes:

Maybe  the American media and the public in your personal perception retain a 
more  rational stance regarding chronic low level ionizing radiation. 


Sadly, no, I do not believe this is true.  Radiophobia is thriving  here in 
the U.S., where we spend billions of dollars to clean up contaminants  that 
under the worst case scenarios would pose theoretical increased risks  of 1E-4 - 
essentially immeasurable by all epidemiological methods, given the  very high 
probability of cancer overall.
 
The media is generally alarmist in its reporting on the subject, and the  
public agencies refuse to counter the nonsense that is often found in print and  
on the airwaves.  Because of this, the public does not know where to get  
reliable information, and assumes that the media must be reporting the  truth.
 
The ignorance and fear that prevails is literally draining our resources  
daily.  We can't get drinking water in the first 72 hours to victims of a  very 
real catastrophic hurricane, but we can diddle away billions arguing about  5 
millirem per year vs. 25 millirem per year at a decommissioning site.   The 
nonsense that abounds is astounding.  
 
Barbara L. Hamrick