Re: LNT/ALARA and workable regulations (formerly

[Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2000 GlennACarlson@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Mr. Cohen's approaches seems to be 1) relax the exposure limits on radiation 
> until the number of people who identifiably die from the effects of radiation 
> could no longer be swept under the rug of statistical background noise or 2) 
> relax the exposure limits on radiation until the number of people who 
> identifiably die from radiation is comparable to the number who die from 
> other environmental pollutants such as air pollution (tens of thousands?).  

	--There is no evidence whatsoever that tens of
thousands, thousands, or even hundreds of people will die from radiation
per year, even if we accept LNT and estimates by the anti-nukes of the
probabilities and consequences of reactor accidents. The effect of doing
what you say is to kill tens of thousands with air pollution. I want to
save lives, and you want to adopt policies that kill people. How can you
justify such a position? 

> The rationale is that these deaths are the acceptable or, even,desirable
> sacrifice to technological progress and creation of wealth.

	--The rationale is that the measures I favor save lives rather
than "sacrifice" lives. Isn't that logical? Your quote, taken out of
context, misses my point entirely.

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