RE: More on "informed dialogue"

["Weiner, Ruth" <rfweine@sandia.gov>]

Maybe we should be careful about the use of language:

"...the Executive Summary of the 1975 Rasmussen Report (issued
shortly after the creation of the NRC) COMPARED to the likelihood of being
harmed by a nuclear accident to that of being injured by a falling
meteor. " (emphasis mine)  A comparison is a comparison, and that is what a
risk assessment is good for.  The Rasmussen Report compared risks from a
nuclear accident to lots of events, some with higher risk, some like the one
mentioned, with lower risk.  The fact that a falling meteor (or anything
else) was used as a comparison means nothing.  The point is how badly the
Rasmussen Report may have underestimated the risk, and I don't know the
answer to that question without rereading the report..  

"...when the Government could effectively dictate what people thought about
radiation and its uses."  As a refugee from Nazi-occupied Austria, I have
never found that the U. S. government "dictated" anything, let alone
"dictating thought."  Federally funded science may have done and said stupid
things, and may have been mistaken about things, but "dictate?"  I don't
think so.  On a personal note, I am sick of these anti-government diatribes

"Did that word ever get passed on the medical community, so that an
immediate stop could be put to the then common use of x-ray to treat
enlarged tonsils and adenoids, as well as acne and other skin
disorders?  It did not..."  Check your facts.  It DID.  My father was
treating thyroid disease well into the 1950s, and massive irradiation to the
head and neck had stopped when the effects became known.  Incidentally, the
practice of routinely removing tonsils was ended at about the same time.
The practice of routinely x-raying children's feet in new shoes ended in the
late 1950s.

Clearly only my own opinion.

Ruth F. Weiner, Ph. D.
Sandia National Laboratories 
MS 0718, POB 5800
Albuquerque, NM 87185-0718
505-844-4791; fax 505-844-0244
rfweine@sandia.gov


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Crane [mailto:pgcrane@erols.com]
Sent: January 11, 2000 8:26 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: More on "informed dialogue"


"In the AEC days," writes Michael Stabin, "the Government decided
what was 'good for you' in terms of nuclear policy and just did it. 
Technical decisions were based on input from the best minds of the day,
and were generally sound."
   With all respect, I cannot share Mr. Stabin's nostalgia for the days
when the Government could effectively dictate what people thought about
radiation and its uses.  Indeed, the argument can be made that many of
the problems that have beset the nuclear option over the last 25 years
are the direct result of mistakes made by the AEC.  
   

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html