[ RadSafe ] Concerns Could Reduce Radiation Sensor Deployment

[HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net]

True. My medical experience is that alarmism kills more people than the proclaimed danger, by increasing adrenalin, clots, heart attacks and strokes. Adrenalin blockers are widely needed and proven to protect (1/2 rate of second heart attacks, when taken).

Also, the lkihood of sarin or anthrax distribution seems easier and therefore more likely than an a-bomb vaporizing Manhattan or Washington DC. Unfortunately, millions of nuts would like to do all those because of our "immorality". They stated intent to do so, ("war"), and proved unexpected capacity to do so on 9/11/01. We should be grateful that our imperfect government has protected us until now. I did not believe it could.

Howard Long

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: BLHamrick at aol.com 

> 
> 
> In a message dated 9/5/2008 6:23:58 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, 
> cjb01 at health.state.ny.us writes: 
> 
> Any competent- and honest HP- could have foretold this. There is no 
> technological solution to nuclear terrorism. 
> As long as there are vendors and careerists willing to tell lawmakers and 
> political apparatchiks what they want to hear, 
> the warnings of those of us who know better will continue to be drowned 
> out. 
> 
> Shame on all those who made a buck from this boondoggle! 
> 
> 
> 
> Clayton, 
> 
> Actually, a lot of competent HPs did tell them this, but they were 
> determined not to listen. We are living Orwell's "1984," with the endless 
> shifting 
> "war on terror," and the use of fear to control, but it's like no one ever read 
> the book. 
> 
> And, to avoid sounding partisan about this, democrats are no better than the 
> republican fearmongers. In California (controlled by a democratic 
> legislature) this session they passed a bill to do biomonitoring (or some such 
> nonsense) for carcinogens, at a cost of God knows what (because their fiscal 
> assessments are generally worthless). HELLO! The five most significant cancer 
> promoters/indicators are 1) smoking, 2) drinking, 3) diet, 4) lack of exercise, 
> and 5) genetics. The contribution of environmental insults is nothing in the 
> big scheme of things. OTOH, I don't want them to get anymore crazy ideas 
> about controlling our personal lives. I would prefer if I could just continue 
> to smoke, drink, eat some potato chips, and lay on my couch, without the 
> government interfering (I can't do anything about my bad genes). And, we're 
> all 
> going to die of something one day. So, let's just accept that, and move on. 
> 
> Seriously. Could we stop with the hysteria about death? Yes, I'm afraid of 
> being in a plane commandeered by terrorists, and yes, I'm afraid of dying a 
> slow painful death from cancer. I just think that, in the end, since we're 
> all going to die anyway, it might be better to spend our capital frugally on 
> improving the quality of all our lives, rather than spending it recklessly to 
> try to extend the quantity, which will in the end be finite no matter what we 
> do. But, politically, saying you're against death, in whatever form, is a 
> winning ticket. 
> 
> This is the problem we have with radiation. In the public's mind: 
> Radiation = Death. What they don't get is that: Chocolate = Death, Beer = 
> Death, 
> Grandma's faulty genes = Death, Laying around watching TV all day = Death, and, 
> in the end, even exercising and eating right = Death, because we all die. 
> 
> Just my two cents. 
> 
> Barbara L. Hamrick, Esq., CHP 
> 
> 
>