Barbara:
I think you're on
a wrong, or at least non-productive, track. The fact is, that LDR does
NOT produce an additional risk. Most evidence indicates that it reduces
the risk of cancer and of shorter longevity. That's what the data
say. I don't have any data on reindeer tramplings, but I do have data on
LDR. Even NCRP-136, the latest proclamation on LNT, states on page 6,
and in the news release on it issuance, that most populations exposed to LDR
do not show increased cancer and most show decreased cancer. That's
right in the report.
The fact that they
then recommend using LNT anyway is another issue. But they do not claim
that the data show an increased risk from LDR. We must keep clear on
that point.
Ted
Rockwell
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.
I recently had an elected official say to me, "If
you would just "prove" to the community this is absolutely safe, then there
wouldn't be a problem," or something to that effect. How does one
respond? You CAN'T "prove" that anything is absolutely safe. You
can drown in milk, accidentally slit your wrist with a nail file, suffocate on
the smoke from the chestnuts roasting by your open fire by forgetting to open
the chimney flue. NOTHING is "absolutely safe." It is silly to
think in those terms. Yet, where "exotic" harms are involved, such as
the public perceives radioactive materials to be, they expect some impermeable
warranty on the safety.
How do we educate people on the realities of
risk? That's the real question in my opinion.
Barbara