AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Fears promoted by anti-nuclear Greens
Rainer.Facius at dlr.de
Rainer.Facius at dlr.de
Tue Mar 14 02:38:08 CST 2006
"Any small amount of ionizing radiation poses a deadly threat."
This or one of its many variations _is_ the layman's version of the LNT-postulate!
Whether outspoken or not, fear from that deadly threat promoted (or even exploited) by the media is the driving force for the majority of the population which is misled by those agitators which promote their own special agendas of various kinds.
Yes, radiation protection as a public enterprise is a predominantly political affair - and in the final analysis no one can hold politicians accountable for their decisions. The worst that can happen to them is not being re-elected and then being forced to spend their huge pensions for travelling around the world.
Yet, should scientists stay aside, being content that it is not their responsibility if politicians ruin public affairs due to their negligence of science which after all has been funded by public money too.
How far fetched is it to assign some share of responsibility for the victims of radiophobia also to those scientists who promote - willingly or otherwise - this mental illness? I consider the young man as one of these victims of negligent scientists who recently lost his legs and his life in a mistaken attempt to save the world from the dangers of nuclear energy in tying himself to the rails in order to block a CASTOR transport. I myself studied yesterday my energy bill and felt victimized too when adding up my contributions to the enforced funding of uneconomic unpromising alternate energies.
Kind regards, Rainer
Von: Franz Schönhofer [mailto:franz.schoenhofer at chello.at]
Gesendet: Mo 13.03.2006 22:59
An: 'John Jacobus'; Facius, Rainer; tom.mohaupt at wright.edu; maurysis at ev1.net
Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Fears promoted by anti-nuclear Greens
John, as usual I agree with you. The LNT is a valuable tool for Radiation
Protection Legislation - if not the only one acceptable and administrable.
ICRP, BEIR and others are something for scientists thinking of theories of
radiation protection. No scientists make radiation protection legislation -
it is a strictly political process.
I cannot remember having seen any anti-nuclear, green, anti-radiation or
whatever movement referring to ICRP, to LNT, to BEIR, to mSv or whatsoever.
Have you, RADSAFErs ever seen anything in this context? Blaming LNT for
everything negative in radiation protection legislation and radiation risks
as perceived by the population is ridiculous, because nobody in the
population knows what LNT is. Even the most famous anti-nuclears and
anti-whatsoevers would still use the same wordings like "deadly", "a million
time more dangerous than...", "traces have been found of ...", "children
affected by .....". They do not use LNT. Neither the population would change
its believe nor mass media would change their attitude to distribution of
scaring "news", which might help to rise the circulation.
Believe me, if ICRP would lower their maximum permissible concentrations of
radionuclide uptake the groups mentioned above would still fight them the
same way, as if ICRP would recommend higher values. Those groups are not
interested in science and discussion but just opposing whatever is proposed
or on a national level in force. Even if the indoor radon concentration
tolerable would be set to 0 Bq/m3 of Rn-222 they would demand a negative
figure. (I do not joke!!!)
I am sometimes very surprised, how the power of scientists is overestimated
at RADSAFE - legislation is as mentioned above a strictly political process
and scientists are sometimes (!!!) used as a welcome shield for politicians
if they support their opinions.
PhD, MR iR
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im
> Auftrag von John Jacobus
> Gesendet: Montag, 13. März 2006 21:16
> An: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de; tom.mohaupt at wright.edu; maurysis at ev1.net
> Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
> Betreff: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Fears promoted by anti-nuclear Greens
> Both you and Tom are correct. The BEIR and ICRP
> acknowledge that research shows the biology is more
> complicated than the LNT. Nevertheless, the LNT was
> and still is an instrument for radiation protection.
> However, I do not think that groups like the ICRP and
> BEIR can be held responsible for the misuse of the
> data by those with an anti-nuclear agenda. I do not
> believe there are measurable risks below 100 mSv, and
> I am sure that many of the members of the ICRP and
> BEIR would agree.
More information about the RadSafe