[ RadSafe ] Fwd: Forbes Article RadSafe
theo at richel.org
Fri Jan 18 09:01:18 CST 2013
Well the papers Conca supplied do not support his claim that UNscear
says goodby to the LNT, and I have just called Crick at the Unscear
secretariat and the big report that Conca refers to isnt out yet, itl
take another 2 months. Conca's references to a resolution is
incomprehensible, it is just a very long UN-way of telling Unscear to
keep up the good work. Meanwhile I am mailed by people telling me there
is good news, that finally the LNT below 100 mSv will be abandoned. Well
I don't believe it will be. Disappointing.
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jeff Terry
Sent: woensdag 16 januari 2013 22:34
To: Health Physics
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: Forbes Article RadSafe
Comment on the question below from Jim Conca.
Begin forwarded message:
> It was supposed to be ratified by the General Assembly this month, but
hasn't yet. I will post the link when it does. UNSCEAR staff such as
Weiss have presented parts of it and that is where the information is
coming from. Attached are two source documents, which we were provided
by a contact closely connected to the matter. I don't know how to attach
them to a blog.
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 1:05 PM, Jeff Terry wrote:
> Hi Jim,
> Someone posted to the RadSafe mailing list a question about your
Forbes article on LNT and Unscear.
> Would you be willing to comment on it?
> I hate to spoil the fun, but my initial enthusiasm for the
> Conca/Forbes article
> ng -radiation-is-not-a-big-deal/ ) on the supposed divorce from the
> LNT by Unscear is cooling down. In the first phrase there is mention
> of a 'very big report'. Now English is not my native language, so
> 'big' may also mean 'important', but the only thing I have found so
> far is a piece of
> 13 pages
> OpenElement ) and nothing there comes close to what Conca claims 'It
> concluded what we in nuclear science have been saying for decades -
> radiation doses less than about 10 rem (0.1 Sv) are no big deal.'
> Another quote 'UNSCEAR "does not recommend multiplying low doses by
> large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced
> health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at
> levels equivalent to or below natural background levels" is indeed
> there, but I find this denouncement of the collective dose less
> impressive than what he originally suggests.
> The author himself does not link to the original report , strangely,
> but to a confusing piece on Fukushima and the possible threshold of
> 100 mSv. So where is this report where Unscear says goodbye to the
> The information contained in this e-mail message, together with any
attachments thereto, is intended only for the personal and confidential
use of the addressee[s] named above. The message and the attachments are
or may be an attorney-client or other privileged or protected
communication. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or
authorized to receive it for the intended recipient, you have received
this message in error. You are not to review, use, disseminate,
distribute or copy this message, any attachments thereto, or their
contents. If you have received this message in error, please immediately
notify us by return e-mail message, and delete the original message.
Thank you for your cooperation.
More information about the RadSafe