[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Steven Milloy
The response here is much too simplistic.
A couple of key differences you need to note:
1) I think that everybody on _Radsafe_, no matter what
their opinion on other issues, is scientifically savvy
enough to realize that smoking is the key cause of
lung cancer. Steven Milloy is out in left field on
this issue; Radsafers [I think most everybody] are
not.
2) Steven Milloy's agenda is also weighted heavily in
favor of maximum use of fossil fuels. He denies the
existence of risks from fossil fuels (and nuclear ones
and probably dam breaks also). I believe that
everyone here on Radsafe is cognizant of risks from
different technologies and behaviors. [I don't give
Milloy that credit].
However, I also believe that many on RadSafe are
interested in an honest comparative evaluation of
risks between technologies (nuclear vs. fossil),
rather than merely accepting a 'status quo.' Milloy
isn't really interested in that. Such a comparison of
risks may involve comparing and questioning actual vs.
assumed levels of risks, which is what Dr. Cohen did
in this article(*) some years ago. This is also what
JM does.
Let's use a simple example of comparative evaluation
of risks. We know that black lung is associated with
coal mining and we know that the high levels of radon
in uranium mining are hazardous.
If we know that both coal and uranium mining are
hazardous, and also assume that plentiful electricity
is beneficial to society, we should compare the
man-hours in the mine necessary to obtain one MWe
worth of fuel, along with the relative risk (RR) ratio
of each type of mining for early mortality from lung
disease. I don't have these figures off the top
myself, but owing to the much greater energy density
of uranium, I would think they would favor nuclear for
overall reduced risk to miners, even if the risks from
the power plant part of the fuel cycles are omitted.
Here is a related tidbit: The central parts of
Kentucky and West Virginia (coal mine [and smoking]
country) have some of the lowest life expectancies in
the country.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/organizations/bdu/data/county.htm
One unrelated thing that I forgot to mention is that
it was good that Dr. Field published his 'null' result
with breast cancer. Often times 'null' results do not
get published.
I guess what I'm trying to say in a roundabout way is
that 'name-calling' and 'quick, pat answers' don't
hold much water. 'Don,' if you are the scientist that
you say you are, even an anonymous one, you should
know better than to make overly simplistic posts like
this. You should be more interested in subjects such
as comparative risk evaluation and should pursue them
instead.
~Ruth 2 aka Ruth Sponsler
==========================
REF.
Cohen BL. 1991 Catalog of risks extended and
updated.
Health Phys. 1991 Sep;61(3):317-335. Review.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1880022&dopt=Abstract
Cohen BL, Lee IS. 1979. A catalog of risks.
Health Phys. 1979 Jun;36(6):707-722. No abstract
available.
=====================================================
-- Rad health <healthrad@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ruth2
>
> I definitely agree. And IMHO so is Jim Muckerheide.
>
)
> >
> >Steven Milloy is an extremist, in my humble
> opinion.
> >
> >The most obvious example is that Milloy doesn't
> even
> >associate cigarette smoking with lung cancer! This
> >one thing, all by itself, reduces Milloy's
> credibility
> >(with me) to a very low level.
> >
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/