Re: COGEMA Says No to LNT

[Gary Isenhower <garyi@BCM.TMC.EDU>]

----snip----

scientific bodies and regulatory authorities have repeatedly rejected

the

idea of a threshold for radiation damage, most recently in 2002.

----snip----



Bill, 



I include the quote above to show that this is not a conservative

assumption.  Its a radical position: all radiation is harmful.  Even

assuming LNT, a 3 mrem dose is an absurdly low risk, not even worth

comparing to my trip to work each morning here in Houston.



Regarding your second point, please point me toward the evidence that

supports LNT.  I promise to give it a fair and impartial hearing. 

Despite the overwhelming preponderance of junk science and emotionally

unstable anti-nuke anti-radiation anti-anti-green elements, I would like

to hear some real science that has better evidence for LNT than, e.g.,

hormesis.



Finally, on your last point, I agree completely with you about the

dangers of megalomaniacs and their God given missions, which is exactly

why this 3 mrem COGEMA story is so ridiculous.  The true believers in

this drama are Norm and his compatriots.  They BELIEVE.  No amount of

evidence will sway them, and they rejoice at the thought of a 3 mrem

violator being barred from the country.  But there is no worry that

hormesis folks or anti-LNT folks are negating "the inefficiencies and

errors of the democratic process" as you wrote.  I submit that the

democratic process is far better served if radiation safety

professionals vote and lobby on radiation issues than if they sit

silently while others pull the trigger on their collective

environmental/energy brains.

    _______________________________________________



	Gary Isenhower

	713-798-8353

	garyi@bcm.tmc.edu





William V Lipton wrote:

> 

> You expressed what I've been trying to say; many thanx.

> Let me add that:

> 

> (1) Regulations are not based on LNT as "truth," but simply as a conservative

> assumption for planning purposes.

> 

> (2) Regardless of what they they may think, the anti-LNT folks don't possess

> "scientific truth," but simply a hypothesis which they believe has better

> evidence.

> 

> (3) Nothing's more dangerous than a megalomaniac on a mission from God.  I'll

> take my chances with the inefficiencies and errors of the democratic process,

> rather than submit to the self-proclaimed experts who are so sure of themselves

> that they won't listen to criticism.

>

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

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/