AW: [ RadSafe ] Fears promoted by anti-nuclear Greens

[Rainer.Facius at dlr.de]

Tom:

Although you may be right regarding the parenthood of the monster, presently it is thriving and prospering mainly due to the nurture granted by the BEIR committees. If I remember correctly, the draft for the upcoming ICRP recommendations tried to spell out and discourage some of the most extreme abuses of the LNT postulate - which unfortunately they continue to uphold as a hypothesis reflecting radiobiological reality instead of a conceptual tool necessary for radiation protection practices.

Best regards, Rainer 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Tom Mohaupt
Gesendet: Montag, 13. März 2006 15:20
An: Maury Siskel
Cc: RadiatSafety
Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Fears promoted by anti-nuclear Greens

Why aren't the ICRP and NCRP addressing these exaggeration issues? I told Roger Clark of the ICRP a few years back at an HPS meeting that "it isn't the use of the LNT hypothesis that worries me, it's the abuse". 
The system is wrought with people who hyper-inflate the radiation hazard to fit agenda. The LNT is being outright abused on many issues. My neighbor recently told me that she refused to have x-rays because they are dangerous. If the ICRP and NCRP continue to purvey the LNT then they should be at the forefront of preventing its abuse. At the very least they should support us in our effort to address abuse as it arises. 
There are two ways for an idea to become a societal paradigm: it's the truth or it's repeated so often that people believe it to be the truth. 
That is what we're seeing - a barrage of clatter inculcating the message into people's heads. Once it's there, the truth may become moot. The ICRP and NCRP created the monster, they should at least help corral it.
Tom

Maury Siskel wrote:

> Can some Radsafers in Australia try to right this wrong? Below is just 
> a small sample of the anguish being imposed wrongfully on these 
> townsfolk without any supporting data? This is a gross and unnecessary 
> injustice. At worst, even if the fancied cancer claims were correct, 
> these folks surely should have their fears alleviated by some facts 
> about DU, about the former fictional head of the imaginary Depleted 
> Uranium Project, and about an honest assessment of the possible 
> dangers to citizens of Lancelin and surrounding areas. This horse dung 
> being dumped on Lancelin by Green Left Weekly is sick!
>
> Lancelin deserves better.
>
> Sincerely,
> Maury&Dog (maurysis at ev1.net)
> ===================
>
> ".... Dr Doug Rokke, former head of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium 
> Project, visited Lancelin in July 2003 and told local activists that 
> it was 100% likely that DU munitions either had already been used on 
> the weapons range, or would be. ..."
>
> http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/660/660p12.htm
> _______________________________________________
> 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/


-- 
Thomas Mohaupt, M.S., CHP
Radiation Safety Officer
Wright State University
937-775-2169
tom.mohaupt at wright.edu



_______________________________________________
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/