Re: Deaths from fossil fuel burning air pollution -Reply

["Franz Schoenhofer" <franz.schoenhofer@chello.at>]

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: John Flood <FloodJR@nv.doe.gov>
An: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Datum: Mittwoch, 13. Dezember 2000 00:02
Betreff: Re: Deaths from fossil fuel burning air pollution -Reply


>>>> "Franz Schoenhofer"
><franz.schoenhofer@chello.at> 12/12/00
>02:22pm >>>
>
>>RADSAFErs, come back to a serious
>>perception of where the problems of
>> this world are.
>
>I think that you will find that
>Radsafers are, as a bunch, the ones
>decrying the misapplication of our
>limited resources to the study and
>control of remarkably small exposures
>and their possible (or impossible)
>connection with a theoretical few
>cancers. I thinks you'd have to work
>very hard indeed to find anyone here
>who thinks that megabucks spent on
>studying the possibility of a few
>cancers being attributable to a few
>rem is a better investment than the
>same money spent on medical care or
>food for the sick and hungry. There's
>just no comparison in the number of
>lives saved per dollar spent.


John,

I agree with you. Hopefully my posting was not misconceived as a criticism
per se, but it was intended to remind people on the real problems in the
world. I think that quarrelling about the number of deaths caused by nuclear
energy, air pollution etc. is not the real issue and problem of this world.
It seems to be an issue of us saturated "Westerners", who worry about the
rise of sales before Christmas, the profit from stock transactions, the need
to renew the computer systems every year etc. etc.

As long as million people starve to death per year I cannot recognize any
sense in discussing, which form of energy production causes more or less
deaths. There people are lying dead on the ground and here we talk about,
whether one or two persons per million inhabitants may die - statistically
seen - from radiation, calculated according to the LNT or they do not,
because LNT is wrong.

Until now I only have read on RADSAFE about the potential of money to be
saved by for instance not applying the LNT, but I cannot remember that any
idea came up, what to do with the money which could be saved. Regarding
irradiation of food - which would in my opinion be a very important
contribution to help developing countries - I remember too well, how it was
put forward on RADSAFE, that a few lives in the USA might have been saved,
by irradiating routineously all ground beef. It was as well mentioned that
the additional costs would be justified, because it might save a few lives.

I appreciated the answers to my private mail, because it shows that I am not
the only one to advocate a balance between perception of different "risks".
Regarding all the problems on earth I put forward, I simply cannot regard
the "problem" of theoretical and statistical victims of nuclear power as
important.

Franz


BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Schoenhofer;Franz
FN:Franz Schoenhofer
ORG:Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, Department of Radiation Protection
TEL;WORK;VOICE:+43-1-71100-4458
TEL;HOME;VOICE:+43-1-495 53 08
TEL;CELL;VOICE:+43-699-116 813 19
TEL;WORK;FAX:+43-1-7122331
TEL;HOME;FAX:+43-1-495 53 08
ADR;WORK:;;Radetzkystr. 2;A-1031 Vienna;;;Austria
LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:Radetzkystr. 2=0D=0AA-1031 Vienna=0D=0AAustria
ADR;HOME:;;Habicherg. 31/7;A-1160 Vienna;;;Austria
LABEL;HOME;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:Habicherg. 31/7=0D=0AA-1160 Vienna=0D=0AAustria
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:franz.schoenhofer@chello.at
REV:20001215T215634Z
END:VCARD