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

[Miller, Mark L]

The "precautionary approach" allows for rational decision making.  The "precautionary principle" is dogma that almost guarantees inaction or "overly conservative, tentative, timid" action.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted de Castro [mailto:tdc at xrayted.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 5:02 PM
To: Jerry Cohen; The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Aftermath of Fukishima - Thousands of Deaths Preventable by H...

So then it would logically follow that that very same "precautionary principle" would preclude us from accepting the "precautionary principle", and basing all decisions on risk avoidance.

On 10/16/2012 3:01 PM, Jerry Cohen wrote:
> 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