Re: "Anti-nuke clamor"

[BLHamrick@aol.com]

In a message dated 08/05/2000 8:56:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
ruth_weiner@email.msn.com writes:

<< I quite agree that way to much money is spent on mitigating putative and
 ephemeral risks and it could be spent much better on mitigating much greater
 risks, or even on better projects altogether.  I just question the
 connection to jobs -- we'd still be assessing risks, but maybe concentrating
 on the significant ones. >>

I totally agree with this.  In fact, I see much too much expended on low risk 
activities, because they're easy to handle (i.e., you get lots of beans to 
count), but the more significant issues get pushed to the back burner for 
lack of resources.

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