[ RadSafe ] Hypothetical post-LNT Rad Limits and Regs

S L Gawarecki slgawarecki at gmail.com
Mon Sep 28 00:28:10 CDT 2015

​I agree that the public need to be included in the discussion. However,
part of the trade-off involves the concept of limited resources. For
example, if a site is cleaned up to below background levels, then the
resources used are not available for addressing another problem with more
significant health impacts. Budgets are limited, and so other work gets
pushed off the the future. Stakeholders need to understand how the costs of
over-regulation affect them.

*Susan Gawarecki*

ph: 865-494-0102
cell:  865-604-3724
SLGawarecki at gmail.com

​Parthasarathy wrote:
The perception that everyone on either side of the aisle has an agenda is
influencing impartial observers. Rather than naively assuming that public
will not understand complex arguments, specialists must develop the tools
for effective communication WE must not deny the public a chance to
participate in decision making; may be specialists have not yet developed
such tools.?
Let us grudgingly accept that the true nature of interaction of low doses
of radiation with living tissue is not exactly known. So long as
interactions at low dose levels are statistical in nature, it will be very
difficult to accept error free repairs of the micro damages of tissue at
molecular level.A totally maverick approach to the issues is not likely to
be acceptable.At the present level of knowledge, it will be foolhardy to
believe that deterministic answers must be obtained for purely
probabilistic questions.The way forward is to accept and publicize the fact
that the risks, if any, at low levels of radiation are too low to be
worried about.


More information about the RadSafe mailing list