[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Teaching the Doc's
At 06:44 PM 7/22/00 -0500, you wrote:
> Dear Carol,
> IMHO, the problem is that the vast majority of the public (including
>docs) actually believe that the EPA and other regulatory agencies make rules
>that really are needed to protect their health and safety. If the public
>knew and understood what was really going on, there might be mass lynching
>of bureaucrats and politicians.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: carol marcus <csmarcus@ucla.edu>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>Date: Saturday, July 22, 2000 4:14 PM
>Subject: Re: Teaching the Doc's
>
>
>>At 02:36 PM 7/22/00 -0500, you wrote:
>>>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>>>
>>>------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BFF3D8.C3C1B280
>>>Content-Type: text/plain;
>>> charset="koi8-r"
>>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>>
>>> Regarding suggestions that the health physics community play a role =
>>>in educating physicians on radiation effects, I wonder just what we =
>>>should teach them? It is my personal opinion, for example, that the =
>>>consequences of a few diagnostic x-rays, or any other radiation exposure =
>>> within the range of variation of natural background (<100 mrem/yr) =
>>>should be considered trivial and never be the reason to justify =
>>>termination of pregnancy. I think the widespread practice of abortions =
>>>in Europe following Chernobyl was an abomination
>>> Yet, how can I tell people that this is the case, when official =
>>>agencies of the U.S. government have established rules (i.e. 15 =
>>>mrem/yr cleanup levels, 4 mrem/yr drinking water standards, ALARA, etc. =
>>>) requiring the expenditure of vast sums of money to avoid similar =
>>>low-level exposures. If such low exposure levels were trivial, why would =
>>>such restrictions be required?
>>>
>>>------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BFF3D8.C3C1B280
>>>Content-Type: text/html;
>>> charset="koi8-r"
>>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>>
>>><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
>>><HTML>
>>><HEAD>
>>>
>>><META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dkoi8-r" http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
>>><META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
>>></HEAD>
>>><BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
>>><DIV><FONT color=3D#000000> Regarding suggestions that =
>>>the=20
>>>health physics community play a role in educating physicians on =
>>>radiation=20
>>>effects, I wonder just what we should teach them? It is my personal =
>>>opinion, for=20
>>>example, that the consequences of a few diagnostic x-rays, or any other=20
>>>radiation exposure within the range of variation of natural =
>>>background=20
>>>(<100 mrem/yr) should be considered trivial and never be the =
>>>reason to=20
>>>justify termination of pregnancy. I think the widespread practice of =
>>>abortions=20
>>>in Europe following Chernobyl was an abomination</FONT></DIV>
>>><DIV><FONT color=3D#000000> Yet, how can I tell people =
>>>that this=20
>>>is the case, when official agencies of the U.S. government =
>>>have=20
>>>established rules (i.e. 15 mrem/yr cleanup levels, 4 mrem/yr =
>>>drinking=20
>>>water standards, ALARA, etc. ) requiring the expenditure of vast sums of =
>>>money=20
>>>to avoid similar low-level exposures. If such low exposure levels were =
>>>trivial,=20
>>>why would such restrictions be required?</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
>>>
>>>------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BFF3D8.C3C1B280--
>>>
>>>************************************************************************
>>>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>>>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>>>
>>
>>
>>Dear Jerry:
>>
>>Go ahead and tell them anyway. When I teach doc and techs about NRC and
>EPA
>>requirements, I teach them how to analyze how scientifically worthless and
>>self-serving they are. Most docs assume that there is some scientific
>basis
>>for these requirements. When I explain that there aren't any (and for the
>>"medical" program this is certainly true), that's a few more educated
>>sceptics added to the army.
>>
>>Ciao, Carol
>>
>>************************************************************************
>>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
>
Dear Jerry and Radsafers:
IMHO, a mass lynching would be fine, but unbudgeting useless and dangerous
bureaucrats sounds more professional. And, realize that the only thing
between the old Federal Radiation Council, which used to make radiation
standards, and the EPA, which screws it up now, is one lousy presidential
order that could be rescinded and that would bring back the reconstitution
of a Federal Radiation Council and the dysfunctional EPA radiation program
would disappear in a puff of blue smoke. All we need is a President with
intelligence, honesty, and balls. These days, that's a pretty tall order.
Ciao, Carol
Carol S. Marcus, Ph.D., M.D.
<csmarcus@ucla.edu>
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html