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

["Richard L. Hess" <lists@richardhess.com>]

At 11:31 PM 12/23/2002 -0500, BLHamrick@AOL.COM wrote:

> In a message dated
>
> 12/23/2002 8:10:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu
>
> writes:
>
>
> > My draft letter 
> >
> > points out that neither the HPS nor the ICRP have stated that there 
> >
> >
> > is no risk from low doses.  
>
>
>
> I agree, but we must keep in mind there is risk from every conceivable
>
> human activity.  What scientist in their right mind would ever say
>
> there is "no risk" from something?  I don't think that's
>
> legitimate under any circumstances.  There is a "risk"
>
> that a reindeer will trample me to death on Christmas Eve.  It may
>
> be vanishingly small, but there IS a risk.


Barbara,


I think it would be very, very useful for someone (not me) to quantify

(for example) the risks associated with generating electricity:


Let's base it on risk per petawatthour and the cost per petawatthour

based over a 60-year plant lifetime.


Let's examine

  --nuclear

  --nuclear with high temp oil heat 

     (if any of these exist like Indian Point 

1)

  --oil fired

  --gas fired

  --coal fired

  --hydrogen fired

  --wind powered

  --solar thermal

  --geothermal

  --tidal

  --hydroelectric


Of course, we'd have to examine risks to:

  --humans living nearby

  --humans living at various distances

  --animals nearby and at distances

  --plants nearby and at distances

  --greenhouse effect

  --ozone depletion

  --many other factors


This would be a huge report, but I think it's something that needs to be

done based on best available data.


Quantifying the risks in this way might get people's attention. Of

course, the risk is that the report will be--or at least perceived to

be--biased.


Cheers,


Richard