Re:

["cicottegeorge" <cicottegeorge@email.msn.com>]

On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Bjorn Cedervall wrote:

> I have read a draft report that deals with radioprotection of other
species.
> It is easy to reject all this as "crazy" and stop right here but I think
> that it is time to look at what's going on. After all people in more than
20
> countries are involved already. It is time to sort out the central issues
> and ask questions.

On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Bjorn Cedervall wrote:

> --This sounds completely phony to me. . . . .

In my opinion, it boils down to the generic issue of whether animals have
rights.

The issue has to do with whether "other species" have rights.  It isn't
about radiation at all.

My own ethical stance is that we have an obligation to treat animals
appropriately.  Animals do not have a right to proper treatment - we have
the obligation to them, because of who we are, not who they are.  My
perspective is biblical, and anathema to organizations like PETA, but you
can count on this topic arising regularly, with the attendant celebrity
(e.g., Alec Baldwin - wasnt' he supposed to emigrate or something?)
endorsements of proposed studies, regulations, etc.

Irrespective of the above, if a radiation exposure can result in a cancer
with a latency period of 15 years in an animal with a typical lifespan of,
say, 12 years, who gives a rip?  We're not hurting the animal anyway.

Sincerely,
George R. Cicotte
Health Physicist 3
Nuclear Materials Safety
Bureau of Radiation Protection
Ohio Department of Health

DISCLAIMER:  Not only hasn't this been cleared with the Governor, I don't
even know if he's a Vegan.





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