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

Re: dose limits for members of the public



What you say seems reasonable to me. Why not present this evidence to the EPA.
Perhaps they will be so impressed that they will  raise the dose limit.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 3:02 PM
Subject: RE: dose limits for members of the public

Yeah, and if you hold a pencil at shoulder height and let go of it a hundred million times and it drops to the floor every time, you haven't proven that it will drop the next time, but a) that's the way to bet, and b) most reasonable people would consider that adequate proof that pencils drop to the floor when you release them.
 
The difference between the "Chicken Little" syndrome and reasonable people is chicken little's always ask "what if" forever, while reasonable people reach a point where they've seen enough proof to believe there are no more "what ifs" that need to be asked.
 
Having taken over 18 rem in one year without any evidence of harm, and having come out of it healthier than I went in, I have no more what ifs to ask.  I can say 5 rem per year does no harm, because my experience convinces me that the statement is correct.
 
Les Aldrich, CHP
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Cohen [mailto:jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 10:45 AM
To: BLHamrick@aol.com; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: dose limits for members of the public

What would constitute "evidence" of "no harm" at any given dose level? If a hundred million persons received a 5.0 dose with no observed resultant harm. how could we be positively assured that if that dose were given to just one more person, harm would not occur. You can't prove a negative! Except in areas of radiation protection, most people are already aware of that.

I also don't agree that we can say that there is no harm to a  worker when they have received 5 rem for each year of their employment. There is no evidence to support that.


There's not really evidence to support that there's harm either.

Barbara L. Hamrick