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

[John Jacobus]

Rainer,
Thanks for the reply.  If you look carefully at
reports such as BEIR VII, I do not believe that they
say that the risks of radiation are significant.  One
thing that they do say is that there are uncertainties
that make a definitive statement on risks to be
unlikely.  This is the nature of science. 

Unfortunately, the non-scientists may not grasp the
significance of this aspect of the arguments.  Rather,
they hear that there is a risk.  There are also risks
in driving a car, taking a shower, smoking, etc.  This
uncertain, but negligible risk, is what those who an
agenda focus on.  I think that it is up to the
scientists and professional radiation safety people to
identify what the limits of the science are and to put
the questions of risk in perspective.

--- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:

> John:
>  
> 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 yahoo.com]
> Gesendet: Mi 15.03.2006 20:40
> An: Facius, Rainer; franz.schoenhofer at chello.at;
> tom.mohaupt at wright.edu; maurysis at ev1.net
> Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Fears promoted by
> anti-nuclear Greens
> 
> 
> 
> Rainer,
> 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 dlr.de wrote:


+++++++++++++++++++
"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 yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com