RE: COGEMA Says No to LNT

["Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)" <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov>]

Maury,

I am not sure what you are talking about.  If you are saying the there are

no consequences to radiation exposure, I would beg to differ.  I am sure

that even you have heard of reports of people who have suffered radiation

injuries.  One of the purposes of a government is to ensure the safety of

its citizens.  That is why we have things like traffic laws, public health

legislation, etc.  The question is at what point is a law excessive.  Should

we ban handguns because people are killed by them?  How about automobiles,

which kill more people?  People drown at beaches and swimming pools, which

is why municipalities require life guards.



-- John 

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist 

3050 Traymore Lane

Bowie, MD  20715-2024



E-mail:  jenday1@email.msn.com (H)      



-----Original Message-----

From: maury [mailto:maury@webtexas.com]

Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 9:08 PM

To: Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)

Cc: Fritz A. Seiler; RadSafe

Subject: Re: COGEMA Says No to LNT





John, would you please advise me what might be the consequences of zero

consequences. How does a regulator regulate zero? When might a government or

legislative body (are these two different?) ask you about zero effects --

other than perhaps to question why you would endorse and actively advocate

that the population be deprived of a necessity.



As you know, exposure to excessive water is deadly. Obviously then, water

should be regulated and eliminated where- how- and whenever possible ... and

so on, and on, and on ....!



Some have been going in circles and finally perhaps the tale (sic) is

looming

into view!



Cheers,

Maury Siskel           maury@webtexas.com

==========================================

"Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)" wrote:



> Fritz,

> Of course, you are not a regulator and therefore do not have to answer to

> any government and legislative body.  You can make any pronouncements you

> like and do not have to worry about the consequences.

>

> Indeed, have a nice weekend.

>

> -- John

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Fritz A. Seiler [mailto:faseiler@NMIA.COM]

> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 4:56 PM

> To: Richard F. Orthen

> Cc: Radsafe BBS; jalvarez; jalvarez@auxier.com

> Subject: Re: COGEMA Says No to LNT

>

> Dear Rick,

>

>         COGEMA is not alone! They got their position from a report of some

> panel of the Academie Francaise (I forget which).  In addition, our

> Health Physics Society also states that risks for doses below 10 rem

> should not be calculated due to an uncertainty that is larger than the

> risk. For an honest scientist, any such number is pure nonsense, as it

> cannot be shown to be different from zero!

>         There are many people such as myself that are scientists first and

> risk

> assessors and health physicists second.  We all deplore the flagrant

> abuse of the Scientific Method perpetrated by the LNT proponents. If you

> are interested, I can put you in contact with people and data bases that

> show what I am talking about.

>

> Best regards and have a nice weekend,



------------------------------------

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

                                                Charles M. Province



************************************************************************

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/