RE: Re :LNT & "speed limits"

["Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS)" <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov>]

Jerry,

I think one would have to be uninformed to misunderstand the issues with

genetically modified foods, human consumption and trade issues.  That is why

I could not get your comments in association about the LNT.  Prudent

avoidance has nothing to do with the LNT, but is based on avoiding ANY

exposure.  The analogy would be like walking under power lines and around

black cats.



I am sure you can cite other examples of what the public understands or

misunderstands.  A large segment of the population does not believe that

cancer can be caused by things other than radiation.  A large segment of the

population does not understand that 1 of 5 will die from radiation.  The

public does not understand that our understanding of risk is based on

extrapolation of data.  Blaming the LNT is a cop-out for not trying to

educate the public.  



As I said before, the ALARA idea is sound as it makes one consider doing

operations safer and better.  



-- John 

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist 

3050 Traymore Lane

Bowie, MD  20715-2024



E-mail:  jenday1@email.msn.com (H)      



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

From: Jerry Cohen [mailto:jjcohen@prodigy.net]

Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 6:52 PM

To: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS)

Subject: Re :LNT & "speed limits"



John,

    One would need to be pretty uninformed to associate LNT with speed

limits, or dose limits for that matter. Excessive driving speed can be

deadly, as can excessive radiation exposure. It is therefore reasonable to

set a safe "allowable"  speed limit or radiation dose limit. Surely, there

is some dose level above which the risk of harm is unacceptable. Whether

that is  5.0 rem/a, or as I believe at a significantly higher level, is a

matter of judgment. Clearly, however, at some high dose level the risk is

unacceptable and so establishing  "safe" radiation exposure limits is a

sensible thing to do, as is setting speed limits.

     However, for radiation we have gone well beyond this concept by

applying LNT "logic" and requiring ALARA. Using the same "logic", we could

have

applied LNT and ALARA to driving speed by arguing that fatal accidents can

and have occurred at some very low speeds, driving at 1.0 mph is safer

than at 2.0 mph., etc.... but unlike radiation, the general public can

recognize the miniscule improvement to traffic safety that would  result as

well as the

advantages they would have to forgo achieve it. Too bad the public doesn't

have a

similar understanding of radiation.



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

From: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS) <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov>

To: 'Jerry Cohen' <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>

Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 12:18 PM

Subject: RE: BBC NEWS | Africa | Famine-hit Zambia rejects GM food aid





> Jerry,

> You will have to tell me what the LNT has to do with this situation.  If

you

> are looking for an argument, then you guess you can use any excuse.  You

> can even say the people who drive within the speed limit are following the

> LNT.

>

> -- John





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

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/