[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: paranoid delusions



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

the first place."



Well, I would surmise that ALARA is accepted and enforced because nobody

knows for sure (contrary to your assertion otherwise) if and how hazardous

is radiation at the levels, not only below the occupational limits, but,

also, way above it. Confirmation of a definite radiation hazard in that

range, and even more below the occupational, that is, at the intended ALARA

levels, is mired in, and at best, patently indistinguishable from, the data

noise.



Furthermore, extrapolating the danger of radiation from a deterministic

(high doses) level, linearly, into the realm of stochastic events (very low

doses), that is, accepting as equally, scientifically, valid assumptions of

DIFFERENT QUALITY, for an assertion of a LINEARLY proportional risk, is

crying from the top of your lungs: "Hey, I do not know now, but I would like

to be sure until the time I know."  Then in a whisper continue with: "Which,

of course, may not come any time soon, if ever."



That is, ALARA is a concept adopted for enforcement, for the pure LACK OF

KNOWLEDGE; maybe as, only, a soothing balm against a hysterical

anti-radiation crusade.



The blunderbuss statement: "If radiation were not so extremely hazardous

...", obviously, is infantile, since if that is, indeed, so, then he who

said it, certainly, would not be here, today, to say that.





Dusan Radosavljevic

Austin, TX



desegnac@swbell.net









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

From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of Jerry Cohen

Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 7:26 PM

To: Norman Cohen; Ted de Castro; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: Re: paranoid delusions



    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/



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

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/