Re: paranoid delusions

[hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net]

When regulators, like physicians, are held responsible for errors of omission

(like missing a breast cancer or blocking hormetic increase in life expectancy),

as well as for errors of comission, then we can expect regulators and workers to

be as careful about preventing underexposure as preventing overexposure.



Howard Long



Jerry Cohen wrote:



>     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/