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

John Jacobus crispy_bird at
Wed Mar 15 13:40:23 CST 2006

I am not sure where you obtained that quote, but that
is certainly one I would expect anti-nuclear people to
use.  I frequently answer questions from people who
are worried that their child had an x-ray exam.  It is
a tough business to allay their fears and concerns. 
But I do not have the luxury of saying it is someone's
problem to inform these people.

I say we should "campaign" against those that use and
contort scientific evidence for their own agenda.  I
would prefer saying the radiation expose MAY present a
risk, but the risk is not observable in humans below
100 mSv. The use of radiation provided many benefits. 
These are true statements.

--- Rainer.Facius at wrote:

> Franz:
> "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]
> Gesendet: Mo 13.03.2006 22:59
> An: 'John Jacobus'; Facius, Rainer;
> tom.mohaupt at; maurysis at
> Cc: radsafe at
> 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.
> Best regards,
> Franz

"Those who corrupt the public mind are just as evil as those who steal from the public purse."
Adlai Stevenson

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

More information about the RadSafe mailing list