Re: Nuclear Power

[Pambo1@aol.com]

Lew LaGarde (OFFTOWY@aol.com):

<The fact that one person was exposed to some agent for some period of time, 
with or without effects, is not  reason to presume much of anything.>

Pam Watson:  Exactly the point I was trying to make about Al and his apparent 
exposure to radiation.

Lew: <The fact that you were occupationally exposed to loud noises and 
received 
subsequent compensation does not lead to the irrefutable conclusion that 
those noises caused your hearing loss.>

Pam: I never said it was "irrefutable." (That wouldn't be my style.)  
Regardless, must we have irrefutable proof before we take mitigative action?

Lew: < It is one possibility in a range of possible causes.>

Pam:  I agree, but doesn't it sound like the most likely primary cause, 
considering that I did not have any other noise exposure (no loud music for 
me!) or any other events (maternal rubella, high fever, ear infections, etc.) 
that might have caused my hearing loss?  I will admit that I might have had a 
genetic predisposition--"a delicate ear"--much like it is believed some 
people have a genetic predisposition to developing berylliosis.  The fact 
remains, though, if those with berylliosis hadn't been exposed, they wouldn't 
have developed the disorder, so the Department of Energy has assumed 
responsibility.

The standard of proof that required most of the time is not what would 
convince a scientist, but what would convince a bureaucrat, a jury, or a 
politician.  Of course, you also must have a "complainant" who is determined 
enough to pursue his or her case.

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