Re: Fw: Nuclear experts doubt terror risk

[Ted de Castro <tdc@XRAYTED.COM>]

I think it clear that the purpose of the hormesis comment by the anti-s

referred NOT to the vulnerability of the various industry components -

but to the claim that the small release from a breached shipping cask,

or TM had little or no environmental effect or the number stated for

Chernobyl.  Indeed it is mentioned in this context.



The Anti's will tolerate NOT diversion from LNTH - and to them hormesis

is the ultimate heresy/irresponsibility.  To them if ONE photon gets out

in a populated city of 10 million - there _WILL_ be one death.  That is

the ONLY thing they will hear and to them any differing view by anyone

is sufficient to discredit anything they might say.  



So - to their ilk - that was a very powerful statement.



John Jacobus wrote:

> 

> Maury,

> If this the gist of article(?) or letter that was published in Science, that

> it's comments should be consider in the national debates on protective

> action for nuclear power plants.  While it is certainly different from the

> usually comments we see, it should be viewed by the media as a reasonable

> analysis of the dangers.  It does not dismiss them, but tries to put them

> into perspective.  It is clear and concise.

> 

> As a separate comment, I believe that I read in one rebuttal (which one, I

> do not remember) that people who follow Ted's view believe in hormesis and

> are under playing the radiation risk.  First, I do not see comments about

> hormesis in the this letter, but have not seen the Science article.  Why was

> this charge made?  To draw attention from the Ted's point?  Second, I agree

> with Ted about the dangers and am not convinced of a hormesis effect at low

> doese of radiation. Of coures the use of the "hormesis" arguement may be a

> ploy to dismiss Ted's comments as unscientific.

> 

> -- John

> 

> John Jacobus, MS

> Certified Health Physicist

> 3050 Traymore Lane

> Bowie, MD 20715-2024

> jenday1@email.msn.com (H)

> > ----------

> > From: maury[SMTP:MAURY@WEBTEXAS.COM]

> > Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 6:55:40 PM

> > To: tristan@blackhat.net; Radiation Safety

> > Subject: Re: Nuclear experts doubt terror risk

> > Auto forwarded by a Rule

> >

> The article below might not be identical to the one in Science, but I

> believe it to be very close. This was on Radsafe earlier and I have sent

> it far and wide to news media, but I don't know how to do this

> successfully. The media didn't pick it up until it appeared in Science

> which in turn gave the media an opportunity to sensationalize an

> argument by publishing the vituperative rebuttal by Lyman and his

> Nuclear Control Institute. This summary by Ted and others of the

> National Engineering Academy should, I believe, have gotten wide

> publicity when it was first released.

> Cheers,

> Maury Siskel      maury@webtexas.com

> =======================================

> Subject: I. Summary. Nuclear Power Plant Vulnerability

>    Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 23:51:20 -0500

> 

> SUMMARY I.  NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AS TERRORIST

> TARGETS

> . . .

> 

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

> 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/