[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Precautionary principle

To: dkosloff1@EMAIL.MSN.COM, RuthWeiner@AOL.COM, nelsonjima@HOTMAIL.COM, radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Precautionary principle
From: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 10:47:59 EDT
Reply-To: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM
Sender: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

My point exactly: the :\"benefit" is calculated using the LNT theory (and in
the arsenic-in-drinking-water case it isn't even appropriate because ingested
arsenic is not a canrcinogen and has a pretty well understood threshold. The
cost is very well understood. this is one of those common-sense cases. The
community has been drinking this water for >60 years, or even much longer
(and for the last 30 we knew te arsenic concentration was< 50 ppm). EPA has
ponly to consider the community health statistics.

Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Precautionary principle
  - From: Maury Siskel <maury@WEBTEXAS.COM>

Prev by Date: FW: Hormesis and LNT in Today's News
Next by Date: Re: Precautionary principle
Prev by thread: Re: Precautionary principle
Next by thread: Re: Precautionary principle
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread