[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: COGEMA Says No to LNT
John - As usual, you said it better than I could. Let me add: (a) As you
stated, this is a position statement, not rulemaking. Although I largely agree
with this statement, I feel strongly that rulemaking must consider inputs from
all interested parties, and am highly suspicious of any party which feels he has
a monopoly on "scientific truth," whatever that is. (b) Kai seems to have
overlooked other parts of the position statement such as, "The possibility that
health effects might occur at small doses should not be entirely discounted."
Regardless of "scientific truth," I am strongly opposed to any change in
regulations which would allow unnecessary dose or widespread contamination of
the environment.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
"Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)" wrote:
> Kai,
> I am not sure what you mean by "the "megalomaniac on a mission from God" in
> the HPS." I do believe that the HPS position statement is a position
> statement. It has nothing to do with the violation of any law or
> regulation. Remember, there is still free speech, and the HPS is exercising
> its option to make a statement. I believe that their statement is valid.
> With regard to COGEMA, I believe that the issue is whether or not they
> violated a law or regulation, which is a little different.
>
> By the way, the whole quote from the HPS is
>
> "In accordance with current knowledge of radiation health risks, the Health
> Physics Society
> recommends against quantitative estimation of health risks below an
> individual dose of 5 rem in
> one year or a lifetime dose of 10 rem in addition to background radiation.
> Risk estimation in this
> dose range should be strictly qualitative accentuating a range of
> hypothetical health outcomes
> with an emphasis on the likely possibility of zero adverse health effects.
> The current philosophy of
> radiation protection is based on the assumption that any radiation dose, no
> matter how small,
> may result in human health effects, such as cancer and hereditary genetic
> damage. There is
> substantial and convincing scientific evidence for health risks at high
> dose. Below 10 rem
> (which includes occupational and environmental exposures), risks of health
> effects are either too
> small to be observed or are non-existent."
>
> -- John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kai Kaletsch [mailto:info@eic.nu]
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 12:16 PM
> To: William V Lipton; Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)
> Cc: RadSafe
> Subject: Re: COGEMA Says No to LNT
>
> John and Bill:
>
> Do you disagree with the position statement by the "megalomaniac on a
> mission from God" in the HPS?:
>
> ( http://www.hps.org/documents/radiationrisk.pdf )
>
> "In accordance with current knowledge of radiation health risks, the Health
> Physics Society recommends against quantitative estimation of health risks
> below an individual dose of 5 rem in one year ."
>
> Isn't that what the report claims Cogema did? Is the HPS position statement
> in violation of any US laws or regulations?
> . . .
> ************************************************************************
> 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/
************************************************************************
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/