Re: Son of ALARA!

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

On Tue, 4 Apr 2000, Stanley Fitch wrote:
> 
> As eluded to in "ALARA What?", the battle waged by Cohen et al is deeply
> rooted in the fertile soil of compromise.  If their viewpoint is
> victorious, it could signal the second advent of nuclear power in
> America.  Are visions of accolades dancing around in the heads of Cohen
> et al?  Indeed their battle is not waged against LNT or ALARA, instead
> they fight in favor of the nuclear industry’s unfettered success.  To
> achieve this success, they must redefine acceptable risk.

	--My goal is to save lives and improve our environment If anyone 
doesn't understand this, please consult my books. In them, I accept LNT,
and I discuss risk in lengthy chapters. My definition of "acceptable risk"
is a risk which avoids much greater risks. How can anyone argue with that? 

  They must
> somehow cause a shift in the paradigm of public opinion here in
> America.  Let’s be realistic, such a shift will never occur in our
> democratic society.
> 
>  Now days Cohen et al inform us that
> ALARA is a stupid, indefensible concept.

	--I consider it to be indefensible because it kills many more
people than it saves, and it no longer has any scientific basis


> Why ALARA?  Quite simply this:  One ionizing event can cause a single
> unrepaired double strand break, which may result in a fatal malignancy.

	--It also affects biological defense mechanisms, stimulating the
immune system, increasing production of DNA repair enzymes, etc. It is not
as simple as you say. That is why ALARA has no present scientific basis.

Bernard L. Cohen
Physics Dept.
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Tel: (412)624-9245
Fax: (412)624-9163
e-mail: blc+@pitt.edu


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