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

Rainer.Facius at Rainer.Facius at
Wed Mar 15 15:08:59 CST 2006



Frankly, I do not understand your question? 


If you ask for a source for my first sentence, this is not a verbatim quotation - it is the common tenor of the messages communicated by the media (and not only by activists) whenever they address the topic of radiation! In view of our previous exchanges on that topic my impression is that this not a uniquely German problem and the beginning of the current thread testifies to the same so that I need not repeat them once more. When you try to argue against it you are confronted with BEIR VII and the like. Their corresponding press releases are on file in the editorial offices of TV stations and newspapers and who am I to argue against the National Academy of Sciences!


That there might be a range of exposure levels in the order of the variation of natural background, i.e. of 10 or 20 mSv per year with no measurable associated risk is anathema.


Best regards, Rainer


PS: I do not address the question whether or not regulators do need the LNT concept to manage the practical aspects of radiation protection.




Von: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at]
Gesendet: Mi 15.03.2006 20:40
An: Facius, Rainer; franz.schoenhofer at; tom.mohaupt at; maurysis at
Cc: radsafe at
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Fears promoted by anti-nuclear Greens

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