Re: paranoid delusions

["Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>]

    I agree that the actions of regulators are neither paranoid, delusional,

nor irrational. It is certainly not irrational to take actions that advance

your self-interest. There is no down-side risk to the regulator for

overprotecting against anything that might be perceived as a hazard. Whether

that hazard has a real or scientifically valid basis is irrelevant. If

radiation were not so extremely hazardous, why would we need ALARA in the

first place.

    The public has little, if any understanding of such matters. That's why

they assign the responsibility to regulatory experts. Never mind that they

might actually assigning the fox to guard the chicken coop. Governmental

regulators are at risk for their jobs only when they fail, or appear to

fail, to protect the public against actual or perceived dangers. The problem

will likely continue until such time as the first regulator is fired for

overzealous interpretation of the "rules".





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

From: Norman Cohen <ncohen12@comcast.net>

To: Ted de Castro <tdc@XRAYTED.COM>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 3:56 PM

Subject: Re: radiation exposue at st lucie





> Hi Ted,

> "Paranoid delusions" was a bit strongly worded, don't you think?

>

> I do understand the thrust of this discussion. Too little oversight and

accidents

> happen. Too much oversight and, at least most

> of you feel, nit-picking results. Being the paranoid-delusional anti-nuker

that you say

> I am, for now, I would still lean in the direction of nits being picked.

>

> Norm

>

>

>

> Ted de Castro wrote:

>

> > For those that doubt what Jim M. and others have said many times over:

> > that the very fact that we investigate an occurrence is interpreted as

> > denying ANY claims that may be made as to its insignificant nature.

> >

> > See what Norm wrote below.

> >

> > While we are convinced that the more we investigate smaller and smaller

> > levels that we show our greater effort and greater safety - the antis

> > interpret this as further proof of how very very dangerous radiation

> > must be.  Stricter and stricter rules are not interpreted as greater

> > control and safety - but as merely confirmation of their paranoid

> > delusions.

> >

> > Nothing I've seen yet confirms this better than Norm's own words below!

> >

> > Norman Cohen wrote:

> >

> > > My guess is that "Federal officials" would NOT be investigating if

this were just

> > > a trivial dose exposure.

> > >

> > > Norm





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

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/