Re: Cohen's Refutation of LNT

[AndrewsJP@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 2/9/2002 6:35:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net writes:



> Application of the precautionary principle requires that we explore supplying
>
> deprived peoples with what now appears to be an essential trace energy : about 1
>
> rem/year of ionizing radiation.
>
> Shades of fluoridation, or, better, iodized salt choice!
>
>
> Howard Long


Oh, but we must be more cautious than just exploring the effect of the deprivation of "essential trace energy!"  The bigest effect of the precautionary principle as applied to LNT is the massive expense of urgently needed money spent on trivial exposure prevention, specifically the 10 mrem/year EPA standard and all the engingeering that Ruth(s) and her cohorts (and I in past years) have done to prevent or design around limits based on LNT -- a precautionary principle.  To what end.  Have we saved even one life?  I think not.  In fact we have probably caused many more to occur in other venues because of the misdirected funds.


My thoughts of a mispent youth.




John Andrews

Knoxville, Tennessee