RE: Re: Truck carrying 'low-level' radioactive tools crashes[Scanned]

["Christoph Hofmeyr" <chofmeyr@nnr.co.za>]

John J, and Jim M, Radsafers,

I think the phrase "good enough for regulations" is exactly the point of

difference between you.  When considering 'substantial' doses (about

which magnitude you might also differ somewhat - ten or tens of mSv?)

you might agree.  The problem with the LNT and basing regulations in the

low-dose regime (~1 mSv/y) upon it should be quite evident.  It

logically supports the construct of a collective dose (man-sievert) with

consequences of cancers/man-sievert irrespective of the number of

recipients between which the exposure is distributed.  Tote up enough

'insignificant' doses and you 'stochastically' have a resulting cancer.

This kind of thinking justifies spending substantial money 'chasing the

last gamma-photon' in cleaning up low-level radioactive wastes (and

possibly abandoning regions of high natural radioactivity?). I think

this is at least part of what Jim is railing against.  Even Roger Clarke

of the ICRP (inventor and upholder of LNT) has conceded that the concept

of collective dose can be (and is being) misused (not 'wrong'), and

should be 'de-emphasized', but one also gets the impression that it

would take a super-human effort to move the ICRP substantially from its

ultra-precautionary approach.  With the IAEA following the ICRP

recommendations closely, the LNT and even its discredited consequences

would seem to be the world-wide reality of the day.  The problem

(tragedy) is that particularly poor developing countries can be

encouraged to spend excessive resources on combating perceived radiation

hazards (rather than only actual ones) or forego valuable nuclear

applications due to 'precautionary' fears.  The LNT is a fear-inducing

principle which leads to ridiculously conservative exemption and

clearance levels (based on an additional dose of ~10 micro-Sv/y) with

often unacceptable cost implications.  Is it really "good enough for

regulations"?  Whatever his/her personal belief, the RP 'beneficiary' is

unlikely to protest.  Own musings.

Chris Hofmeyr

chofmeyr@nnr.co.za

  





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

From: Jacobus, John (OD/ORS) [mailto:jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov]

Sent: 15 August 2002 18:27

To: muckerheide@attbi.com; info@eic.nu; jack_earley@RL.GOV

Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: RE: Re: Truck carrying 'low-level' radioactive tools

crashes[Scanned]





>Jim, Jim, Jim.



>You don't get it after all these years.  You, I and many others have

>discussed, argued and complained about what is the "truth," what is

"good

>science," and what is "common sense."  You argue against the LNT.  I

>question it but say it is good enough for regulations.





Well, guess what?  We both loose.  



Laws are made by politicians.  They do not regulate on behalf of good

science.  Heck, I do not think they even vote with good common sense.

Do

you ever notice that spokesmen from the NCRP, ICRP, etc. are seldom

quoted

as "experts."  (Whether you believe they are correct look who are quoted

in

the articles.  It is not the groups you list, e.g., NCRP, ICRP, etc.)

Look

who the papers quote.  Look at the utterly stupid statements that

politicans

and the media make.  I don't know about you, but I get very discussed

with

the BS that the "experts" give out which are SWAG (Stupid, wild a**

guesses.)  



We may disagree about a number of things, but I think we can agree on

this.



Have a cynical weekend.





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

From: Muckerheide

Sent: 8/14/2002 11:06:29 PM

To: Kai Kaletsch; jack_earley@RL.GOV

Subject: Re: Truck carrying 'low-level' radioactive tools crashes



I don't get it! Why are the legislators the killers? They aren't the

"experts!" They're just as gullible as the reporter or the brainwashed

HP.

. . .

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

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/