Michael,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I'm sorry that I may have
steered this string toward a political discussion. I really didn't intend to
do so.
The point I was attempting to make was that allowable radiation dose
limits should be raised significantly. Such an increased limit would result
in immense savings of financial and other resources with no detriment to
health and perhaps even some improvement.
Whether it was intentional or not, the radiation policy establishment
has done much to inflame public radiophobia. I don't know if it is public
fears that cause highly restrictive radiation regulations, or vice versa.
My guess is that there has been a symbiotic relationship between the
anti-nukes and radiation regulators. A problem faced by political leaders in
a democracy, is whether to give the public what they want, or what's good
for them -- and who should decide what's good for them? It would take a
particularly brave politician to do what is right, when such a move would be
unpopular. It is therefore unlikely that dose limits will be raised. At
least not in the foreseeable future.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael G. Stabin <michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu>
To: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 5:17 AM
Subject: Re: Relevance of experts
> Dear Jerry -
>
> >I get the impression that democracy is really a dumb idea.
>
> I don't think democracy in general is a bad idea, but I think we have seen
> that it does not always work well where decision-making surrounds highly
> technical issues. It still could work well in these situations, if the
> public were exposed to a fair and rational debate about the pros and cons
of
> technologies. But instead, they are bombarded by misinformation,
calculated
> to appeal to emotion and division. In the AEC days, the "government knew
> what was good for you" and just did it, based on the best opinions of
> scientists, engineers, and other experts. I think generally this worked
well
> (still works well in France), although there were certainly excesses. In
> correcting those excesses, interestingly at the time we were correcting
> other excesses of secretive government (Watergate), we opened the process
to
> a public debate forum. Again, this may have worked OK if there were not
> these groups so passionately opposed to nuclear technologies, but their
> activities, protected under the First Amendment, have skewed the process
> badly, and I call the resultant process a 'failure of democracy'. But at
> that, it is only one failure, in other cases, public debate has worked
well
> in technical issues, so it's not completely good or bad.
>
> 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
>
>