RE: The FEAR is Our own worst enemy. (Re)

["Tsurikov, Nick" <nick.tsurikov@iluka.com>]

Yep,
But there is no definite proof that these "future" health effects will NOT
occur either.  The 'proof' FOR or AGAINST in regards to health effects of
low-level radiation is somewhere in the distant future and, if it will ever
emerge - no absolute acceptance will be the case; even if this proof will be
undeniable.
For now, if someone writes that 'every photon is dangerous to your health' -
good, great, that's the guy!  If someone writes about hormesis, it means
that the person has been bought...  Go, figure...
And, when a new technology is introduced or an existing one is assessed, the
following precautionary principle applies:
>>>>>In dealing with potentially hazardous technologies the benefit of the
doubt must go to the public and not to technologies.<<<<<

.........

Kind regards
Nick Tsurikov
Eneabba, Western Australia
http://eneabba.net/ <http://eneabba.net/> 

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Kerembaev@cs.com [mailto:Kerembaev@cs.com]
		Sent:	Monday, 14 February 2000 10:26
		To:	Multiple recipients of list
		Subject:	The FEAR is Our own worst enemy. (Re)


		In my opinion,
		IAEA, ICRP, NCRP and BEIR VI, fall under the temptation to
speculate about 
		the "future" health effects which have NO proof. Very
subjective 
		recommendations on very serious object.
		It is unacceptable practice, for the "serious" organization
to speculate 
		about one direction and forgetting about a possibility of
the other. They do 
		that on regular basis by giving recommendations to the
regulatory body. They 
		KNOW that regulatory bodies WILL implement their speculative
recommends in 
		the present days regulations.
		If they cannot distinguish scientific hypothesis from the
proven theory. 
		I would recommend to THEM to tell the truth and say that
they do NOT know yet.
		If we do not know, we do not know. Nothing terrible about
admitting it.
		Today, We need to use those knowledges what we know, NOW.
		If tomorrow we will learn more we will use it.
		I like to speculate about the future my self, but I am not
in the position to 
		force my speculations on the entire world community. They
are. This is the 
		only difference.

		In Chernobyl, I have seen more people who were terrified
with the fear of 
		radiation than, you can imagine. People USUALLY do not admit
it, they try to 
		coup with it in MANY different ways. I have seen only more
stress related 
		harm than real harms from the low levels of radiation.
People were DYING 
		!!!! as the result of those fears. Acute radiation fear
syndrome!!??
		I strongly believe, Radiation Fears resulted in more harm
that those low 
		level doses possible health effects.
		Everybody can relate to the stress of unknown. 
		These very confusing "scientific" recommends just are adding
the constant 
		fuel to those very normal fears.
		We/you have to spend these money to eliminate the REAL Harm
from the High 
		Radiation Levels but not to chase the ghost.


		Emil 
		kerembaev@cs.com


		<< Congress be insisting that the agencies pass regulations
that do not 
		result in real
		 harm from false fears?  Perhaps someone should sue the
agencies for not 
		doing their
		 job in this respect?  How about including IAEA, ICRP, NCRP
and BEIR VI?  
		What do
		 y'all think?
		  >>
	
************************************************************************
		The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and
subscription
		information can be accessed at
http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html