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

Re: Not using LNT to calculate risk does not mean there is no risk.

To: BLHamrick@AOL.COM, jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu, radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Not using LNT to calculate risk does not mean there is no risk.
From: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 00:21:06 EST
CC: jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET
Reply-To: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM
Sender: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

In a message dated 12/23/02 10:02:40 PM Mountain Standard Time, BLHamrick@AOL.COM writes:

How do we educate people on the realities of risk? That's the real question in my opinion.

If that is the real question, then comparison is a good way to educate people. I'm just not convincd that the people who talk about "absolutely safe" don't really know that nothing is "absolutely safe" -- that they are asking an impossibility.

Ruth
Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Not using LNT to calculate risk does not mean there is no risk.
  - From: "Richard L. Hess" <lists@richardhess.com>
- Re: Not using LNT to calculate risk does not mean there is no risk.
  - From: Ivor Surveyor <isurveyor@vianet.net.au>

Prev by Date: Re: Not using LNT to calculate risk does not mean there is no risk.
Next by Date: Re: Not using LNT to calculate risk does not mean there is no risk.
Prev by thread: RE: Not using LNT to calculate risk does not mean there is no risk.
Next by thread: Re: Not using LNT to calculate risk does not mean there is no risk.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread