[ RadSafe ] Aftermath of Fukishima - Thousands of Deaths Preventable by H...

[od at tlmq.com]

I quite agree. Just a comment on PP. I can not really say that I  
understand what on earth they meant with the following: : ??we are not  
saying that the plausible hypothesis (for a future event) is more  
probable than the implausible, although we are saying the plausible  
hypothesis is more of a serious possibility than the other?(UNESCO,  
2005. The Precautionary Principle. United Nations  
Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, France, 2005)

What is a "serious possibility"?

Can anyone help with an explanation?



D.Okkalides
Radiotherapy Dep.
Boffa Hospital
Malta






Quoting "Jerry Cohen" <jjc105 at yahoo.com>:

> Joe,
>     I think you missed the point. All you have described regarding   
> the seismic
> fragility of Japan is true. However, despite this fact, the overall risk from
> nuclear installations is well within the generally accepted limits of
> risk acceptability. The recent earthquake/tsunami incident may not recur for
> many centuries. The entire U.S.A is certainly not immune to similar
> catastrophes. One of the our worst earthquakes happened at New   
> Madrid , Missouri
> in an area of  relatively low seismicity.  There are no guarantees that
> disasters of most any magnitude will not occur just about anywhere.   
> If we were
> to accept the "precautionary principle", and base all decisions on risk
> avoidance, society could grind to a halt, and quality of life
> would drastically diminish.
>
> Jerry Cohen
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "JPreisig at aol.com" <JPreisig at aol.com>
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Sent: Tue, October 16, 2012 12:33:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Aftermath of Fukishima - Thousands of Deaths
> Preventable by H...
>
> Dr. Long, Radsafe,
>
>     Japan is a special situation.  It is a set of  small islands which are
> quite seismically active.
> The placement of very large (global scale subduction) faults in close
> proximity to the islands make
> tsunami risks and loss-of-life quite real.  Japan doesn't have all  that
> much available farmland.
> One bad nuclear accident and companion tsunami has harmed a fair chunk of
> their farmland.
> They are deciding to phase out nuclear power.  It makes good sense for
> Japan.
>
>     The are many places on Earth for which Nuclear  Power is a very viable
> power option.
>
>     Most of the USA is a great place for nuclear  power.
>
>     Have a good week...
>
>     Joseph R. (Joe) Preisig, PhD
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 10/16/2012 3:23:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> howard.long at comcast.net writes:
>
> Jerry,
> Your conference on Radiation Hormesis, Health Physics, May, 1987,
> (which I just pulled out of the file by my desk)
> is updated by Dr  Orient's one page on
> The Aftermath of Fukishima in Civil Defense  Perspectives (Google).
>
> It gives enough info. to write and speak on  (headings):
> The Harm of Over-reaction
> Consistent, Meaningful  Doses
> Establishing a Rational Evacuation Standard
>
> You-all can best  respond to fear mongers who question your very existence!
> "Should Japan,  and the world, totally give up on nuclear energy (Nature
> 6/7/12)?"
>
> Howard Long, Family Doctor, Doctors for Disaster Preparedness  Board Member
>
>
> On Oct 16, 2012, at 10:10 AM, Jerry Cohen  <jjc105 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>   Howard,
>>     Are you suggesting that the way to deal  with a blunder (LNT)
>>   is to ignore and/or perpetuate it?
>>
>> Jerry Cohen
>>
>> ________________________________
>>   From: Howard Long <howard.long at comcast.net>
>> To: The Protection  MailingList International Radiation
>>   <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
>> Cc: Orient Jane  <janeorientmd at gmail.com>
>> Sent: Tue, October 16, 2012 9:38:53  AM
>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Aftermath of Fukishima - Thousands of Deaths
> Preventable by
>> Health Physicists!
>>
>> This concise page  of technical and political data ends with,
>> " If we were, however, to  admit that low-dose radiation is not only safe
> but
>> might cure cancer  and prevent birth defects, what would happen to
> compensation
>> payments  to people irradiated at Hiroshima or Chernobyl, or the
> reputation of
>>   health physicists?
>>
>> Health physicists have a duty to save  thousands of lives from
> deprivation in
>> Japan, now.
>> Who will  raise the voice of science to discredit the fearmongers?
>> This page  prepares you:
>>
>> Google :  Civil Defense Perspectives Sept  2012
>>
>> Howard Long
>>
>>   _______________________________________________
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> 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:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> 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:   
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other   
> settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>