Re: What to do ? ? ?

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 8/11/02 10:25:49 PM Mountain Daylight Time, lists@richardhess.com writes:



> If I recall correctly 0.5 REM/year is the guideline for the average 
>
> population??? What would you consider a guideline for worrying? Getting all 
>
> of that in a week? One day? 10x that in a week? Rough ideas would be helpful.

When I worked with a lot of radioactive materials, my exposure was monitored, and I essentially did not worry at all if I was within occupational guidelines.  I cannot envision a situation where the public radiation exposure would be anything I would "worry" about, any more than I worry about getting close to or exceeding public exposure standards set for other hazardous materials.  Guidelines are conservatively set to include some kind of safety margin, and are tied to some kind of least common denominator.  In my opinion, this is especially true for radiation standards.  In laboratory situations, I worry much more about handling potentially explosive materials or a corrosive material getting in someone's eyes.  I also don't cencern myself about any cu,mulative effects of diagnostic x-ray, dental x-ray, and bone scans.  Accidents, are another matter, but one can't spend one's life worrying about every manner of accident, however likely or !

unlikely.  I fly a great deal, and every time I do, I risk being in a plane accident.  well, if it happens, it happens. On a car trip I think being in a car accident is far more likely, and with far worse consequences, than any radiation exposure that anyone would get.



> How long did people suspect smoking was bad for you before the surgeon 
>
> general came out advising against smoking? Why isn't smoking outlawed? I 
>
> just don't always trust people who tell me "don't worry." This is certainly 
>
> not a personal attack--I've been following your posts for several months 
>
> and believe you to be a woman of integrity.


I tried to smoke once.  It hurt my throat and was expensive, so I essentially never started.  Any smoker can tell you that there are observable physiological adverse effects associated with smoking, and that was known long before  the Surgeon General's warning on cigarettes.  Any smoker can tell you that he or she knows it's not good for you (like drinking to excess).  By the way, mandating seat belts and motorcycle helmets has the same kind of regulatory history as smoking.  However, these "scare" books about radiation distort and usually cite data that siimply isn't true -- that no one has observed.


The "where there's-smoke-there's fire" idea has been used to make totally unsubstantiated charges in many instances (e.g., the late Sen/ Joseph McCarthy's "Communist witchhunts.")  The Wen Ho Lee case is a perfect example. 


> I tried to ask in good faith as there are so many conflicting things out 
>
> here--and most of my friends are anti-nuke. If anything, I think lurking on 
>
> this list for two months has made me far less anti-nuke as I learn what you 
>
> and others are doing and some small part of what you all know.


I suggest you investigate some of these questions yourself.  Read some of the peer-reviewed journals like Health Physics or some college level textbooks on ionizing radiation.


Ruth





Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com