Re: loosing, Tooth Fairy Project

["Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@prodigy.net>]

Ted,
    You suggest that we "nuclear experts" should affirm that there is indeed
some safe level of radiation exposure and that  low doses are not only safe,
but may actually be beneficial. Seems to me that such an affirmation would
be a tall order.
    When I visualize a world in which low-dose radiation exposures are
generally accepted as being safe or possibly beneficial, I see the abolition
of ALARA, along with more than half of the jobs held by health physicists.
Essentially, you are asking people to commit occupational suicide.
    I don't know  the extent to which the current highly restrictive
criteria for radiation exposure might have been motivated by self-interest ,
but I would not rule out the possibility that it played a significant role.
jjcohen@prodigy.net




-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Rockwell <tedrock@cpcug.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: loosing, Tooth Fairy Project


>You've heard it before, but for those who tuned in late, I'll say it again:
>So long as we nuclear experts keep saying that there is no safe level of
>radiation, then all the silly stuff we complain about follows as the night
>the day.  After we are willing to state, without qualification,  the
>scientific truth, that low-dose radiation is harmless and can be
>beneficial--until then, we have no moral right to complain about the
>public's "irrational fear" or stupidity.  Until that day, the lawsuits will
>continue, people will die because they are afraid to get mammograms or
other
>life-saving nuclear medicine procedures, new nuclear plants will not be
>built, people will violently protest shipping tiny quantities of
>radioactivity, etc.  I don't think we can blame them.  (Of course the
>political activists will exploit this situation, but we should see that
>there is no situation for them exploit.  The anti-nukes are not at the root
>of the problem.)
>
>Read the damn literature!  There is no ambiguity or uncertainty about it.
>It has not been refuted or even substantively challenged.  The only
>confusing factor comes from the improper data juggling of a very few
studies
>that claim to find health problems from low-dose radiation exposure.  And
we
>are going to start making scientific misconduct charges on some of those.
>Such charges will not be made emotionally or ad homonym.  They will simply
>point out unacceptable tampering with data and drawing unwarranted
>conclusions.
>
>Ted Rockwell
>
>> In a message dated 08/02/2000 6:07:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>egbur@adelphia.net writes:
>
><< How do you explain this world-wide  decline
> in nuclear power production?>>
>
>Fear and ignorance.
>
> <<People tend to listen to personal stories
> rather than to dry statistics and is part of any appeal for support. >>
>
>Because why mess up their precious emotional lives with facts...
>
>Just my acidic opinion.
>
>Barbara L. Hamrick
>BLHamrick@aol.com
>
>
>
>
>************************************************************************
>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