[ RadSafe ] Excess relative risk: LNT "Shorthand"
Dan W McCarn
hotgreenchile at gmail.com
Sat Feb 16 12:41:24 CST 2008
No, dear friends!
The care and maintenance of a regulator takes years! Visit them early and
often, and be prepared to be teacher & professor and be patient with them.
The problem with a regulator is that by the time they are well trained and
fed, they run off to the industry and become consultants!
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of John Jacobus
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 11:52 AM
To: Syd H. Levine; Franz Schönhofer; 'howard long'; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Excess relative risk: LNT "Shorthand"
Can you cite any references what conclude that bureaucrats are imbeciles?
The science and technology associated with the development of laws and
regulations are reflects in only 20%(?) of the results.
"Syd H. Levine" <syd.levine at mindspring.com> wrote:
The good Dr. Howard is talking about the regulators, not the engineers and
technical folks actually designing and building the NPP.
It is well understood after decades of unbiased research that a very high
percentage of bureaucrats are imbeciles. Those on this list (and those who
are personal friends) constitute the exception to the rule, of course.
As to the state of smarts in the EU as compared to the US...oh never mind.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Franz Schönhofer"
To: "'howard long'" ; "'John Jacobus'"
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:29 PM
Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Excess relative risk: LNT "Shorthand"
Usually, when I answer one of your messages I receive that it is not
possible to forward it to you. This might be because you have cut off my
adress for receipt - no problem, anyway it is like in a recent thread there
was a proposal to do this in case some recipients were offended by me.
You obviously do not know about how a nuclear reactor is built. I have very
little experience and mostly from hear-say, but those people who design
nuclear reactors are usually experts who know more than addition and
substraction. I have heard about the problem of teaching calculus in the US
- absolutely ununderstandable for me (born 1944), because this was the
absolute normal instruction which nobody ever would have questioned of being
too difficult! I cannot believe that US pupils would be so much less
qualified than I and my classmates were decades ago - or are they?
So what? Do you claim that all those scientists and enginneer planning for
new nuclear power plants are idiots?
Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag
von howard long
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Februar 2008 18:41
An: John Jacobus; radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Excess relative risk: LNT "Shorthand"
"Shorthand" LNT (Jacobus, below) burdens Nuclear power with dumb regulation,
crippling the USA economy.
Should regulators, who impose 10 times the cost and time to build a reactor,
in graphs from Ted Rockwell's book, be allowed to so simplify for their own
convenience? Let them learn calculus instesd of imposing their simple
ALARA, which I used for my office x-rays, is simplistic but deadly when
the complex facilities needed in a nuclear age and may deprive people from
Cameron's "essential trace energy".
"If history teaches any lesson it is that no nation has an inherent right to
greatness. Greatness has to be earned and continually re-earned."
- Norman Augustine, Chairman of the National Academies Committee
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
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:
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
More information about the RadSafe