Re: Relevance of experts

["Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@prodigy.net>]

    I agree with you that fearmongering is probably not their primary

intent, but human nature is such that the desire for self-preservation must

be lurking somewhere in their minds. How else could you account for the fact

that all information on harmful effects of low-level dose is dealt with in

such extensive detail, while all scientific data indicating the absence of

low-level effects and/or hormesis is essentially ignored in their

assessments.

    The guidance of ICRP/NCRP has had a strong impact on the development of

absurdly restrictive regulation of radiation . Whether or not it was their

actual intent  to scare people, the net-effect on public attitudes is the

same and I've seen little or no effort on their part to change that

situation.



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

From: Michael G. Stabin <michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu>

To: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 1:17 PM

Subject: Re: Relevance of experts





>

> >Why do you exclude  ICRP, NCRP, etc. from the "fearmongering" category?

>

> I do not accept, and in fact find quite objectionable, the position put

> forth by some on this list of a moral equivalence between these fine

> scientific committees and the organizations and individuals bent on

> disseminating disinformation for political purposes. We have drawn

parallels

> before to other periods in history where scientific theories were replaced

> or amended by overwhelming evidence. In the case of LNT, there may be

> evidence against it, but it is not overwhelming to the point that the

> scientific community as a whole, or these committees in particular, have

> been swayed to embrace them and the wholesale changes in radiation

> protection philosophy and practice they suggest. Equating this cautious

> attitude with the irresponsible anti-nuclear fearmongering of the

Sternglass

> types is, I think, also irresponsible. Such emotional and off-target

> accusations cause those who make them to lose credibility in my book. We

can

> be critical of committees, public agencies, and individuals who we feel

may

> be overly conservative or who err, that's fine, if it's done

constructively.

> The more strident criticisms that I often see on this list along the lines

> you mention do not interest me even for discussion purposes, because I

find

> them so patently untenable and unfair.

>

> Mike

>

> Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP

> Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences

> Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences

> Vanderbilt University

> 1161 21st Avenue South

> Nashville, TN 37232-2675

> Phone (615) 343-0068

> Fax   (615) 322-3764

> e-mail     michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu

> internet   www.doseinfo-radar.com

>

>

>

> ************************************************************************

> 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/