[ RadSafe ] A non-solution for a non-problem
jjc105 at yahoo.com
Tue Jan 31 18:48:29 CST 2012
OK, I get it! I's not about dose. It's about trust.
Given that's the case, why are we wasting so much time and money studying
predicted dose consequences. Rather that squandering our limited resources on
Health Physicists and Environmental Scientists, what is needed is more public
relations experts and social scientists who understand public feelings regarding
I wonder how the people of Tennessee feel about the BNL tritium raining down on
From: William Lipton <doctorbill34 at gmail.com>
To: pottert at erols.com; The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
Mailing List <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Tue, January 31, 2012 2:10:38 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] A non-solution for a non-problem
In case you haven't heard it, before: "It's not about dose, it's about
trust." The citizens would not accept the message from the experts:
"Trust me, this won't hurt a bit." I don't blame them.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:02 PM, THOMAS POTTER <pottert at starpower.net>wrote:
> The concern expressed by the good citizens of Long Island (whose trust of
> anything nuclear had vanished long before the Brookhaven flap, and could
> hardly have been reduced further by anything Brookhaven might have done)
> about the H-3 leakage from Brookhaven is entirely appropriate. It should
> not have happened, and, given that it did happen, some corrective action
> was warranted.
> But why not some thoughtful concern about what might be the most
> appropriate course of corrective action? (Are we bound by some law of man
> or nature to have and act on only one concern, to the exclusion of all
> other related concerns?) How does the small, but actual exposure of the
> good citizens of Tennessee to this H-3 in the name of preventing unlikely
> potential small exposure of the good citizens of Long Island make sense to
> anyone, including the good citizens of Long Island, who certainly would not
> have put up with it themselves?
> There is much to be said for the inclusion of the public in decisions of
> this kind. They are among the stakeholders. But the stakeholders who won
> this battle were holding the long, wooden, sharp-pointed variety.
> Tom Potter
> ---- Original message ----
> >Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:58:23 -0500
> >From: William Lipton <doctorbill34 at gmail.com>
> >Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] A non-solution for a non-problem
> >To: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net>, "The International
> > Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List"
> > <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> > <
> CAJODVEHO_ZNZECsUr54nuEHMSvdYtBBE2RT5ihXihcfnt1Sw2g at mail.gmail.com>
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >I am more disturbed by the fact that BNL management allowed the fuel pool
> >of the High Flux Beam Reactor to leak into the aquifer for as long as 12
> >years before discovery. Despite promising to install monitoring wells in
> >1994, Brookhaven management delayed the installations. Later monitoring
> >showed tritium levels up to 32 times federal drinking water standards.
> >As the GAO Report<
> >"Brookhaven's delay in installing the monitoring wells raised serious
> >concerns in the Long Island community about
> >(1) the laboratory's abiity to take seriously its responsibilities for the
> >environment and for human health and safety and (2) DOE's competence as an
> >overseer of the laboratory's activities."
> >While shipment of the water for disposal was not technically necessary, I
> >don't blame the population and elected officials for their distrust of
> >explanation, since previous DOE assurances of adequate monitoring were
> >Bill Lipton
> >It's not about dose, it's about trust.
> >On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Jerry Cohen <jjc105 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Previously, on radsafe, the BNL tritium problem was discussed and, as I
> >> recall,
> >> it was shown that in no way was it a public health problem. In fact,
> >> is no
> >> way that release of tritium to the environment could, in general, cause
> >> significant health problem . Given this situation, I am disturbed that
> >> much
> >> of my tax money has been squandered on a project that is little more
> >> "show
> >> business". Given the technological ignorance of the news media, couldn't
> >> the DOE
> >> find a much cheaper way to assuage the concerns of a technologically
> >> ignorant
> >> public than shipping water to Oak Ridge?
> >Message: 7
> >Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:26:10 -0800 (PST)
> >From: Ahmad Al-Ani <ahmadalanimail at yahoo.com>
> >Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] A non-solution for a non-problem
> >To: jjcohen at prodigy.net, radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> > <1327994770.41788.yint-ygo-j2me at web111715.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 8:18 AM AST Jerry Cohen wrote:
> >>OK, so distrust is the problem, rather than a genuine health threat.
> Now that
> >>Long Island groundwater has been shipped to Tennessee. Does the public
> now have
> >>confidence in BNL, DOE, or nuclear energy in general. Just what did we
> get for
> >>the tax money spent? Jerry
> >A stern reminder to the decision makers in the nuclear industry that when
> an organization agrees on something subject to public protest, they better
> fulfill the promise.
> >BNL could have saved a lot more of the tax money, and save themselves the
> negative PR by implementing the agreed monitoring systems, even if it was
> not necessary from health perspective.
> 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: http://health.phys.iit.edu
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