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

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

We're getting closer to the nub of the problem.  It is possible to demonstrate
something is harmful.  It is impossible to demonstrate something has no risk.
However, until we have evidence to demonstrate significant harm to the whole
human race, it is wrong to require demonstration of safety before something is
done.  If that were the case, no one would ever do anything.  Until you do it,
demonstration of no risk is impossible.  After you do it, demonstration of harm,
if any, is possible.  The nuclear industry has carried on for decades, stuck in
the erroneous idea that absolute safety must be demonstrated before the LNTH is
abandoned.  Even when there is no demonstrated harm at the current levels (5 rem
per year for workers and the old 500 mrem per year for the public), we keep on
requiring proof of no harm at levels even below those and the US EPA and NRC
fight about the difference between 15 and 25 mrem per year to the public.  It is
insane, IMHO.

"Tsurikov, Nick" wrote:

> Yep,
> But there is no definite proof that these "future" health effects will NOT
> occur either.

So what?  Should we shiver in our boots with fear that they might occur?  Why,
only in the nuclear industry, does such fear happen. (Yes, I have read "Nuclear
Fear".) I don't see it in other industries.  Certainly not in flying where a
whole plane load of people died and similar planes were not immediately
grounded, even after 21 were found with problems similar to those of the doomed
plane.  When the engines came off the DC10s, planes were grounded.  Why not
now?  Is the air industry different from ours?  If so, how, except that it is
more dangerous.

> 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.

Yup.  There are still some people who believe the earth is flat.  Beliefs get
you in trouble.

> 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.<<<<<

Somehow we must expunge this idea from human thinking.  Experience is what
counts not phobic fear.  Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net
begin:vcard 
n:Tschaeche;Al
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Nuclear Standards Unlimited
version:2.1
email;internet:antatnsu@postoffice.pacbell.net
title:CEO
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Al Tschaeche
end:vcard