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

["Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj@AECL.CA>]

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
=================

 

Yes, and apparently some people in the nuke industry who should know better, have gone on record saying the wrong thing.

According to one antinuke media commentator, all you need to do is an Internet search for "absolutely safe" to find a whole bunch of such claims in the industry ( see the article "Absolutely Ridiculous" posted at the bottom of the page at http://www.magma.ca/~whitlock/cnf/021113_response.htm  and the original article at http://www.magma.ca/~whitlock/cnf/ep_021106.htm )

 

The important point though is that the people who have claimed "absolute safety" are NOT SCIENTISTS -- or at least not usually; most of these comments are actually attributable to industry execs who often have little or no knowledge of the science & risk analysis, or to antinukes putting words in other people's mouths...

Just another reminder that we need to be VERY careful with our choice of words when responding to antinuke propaganda -- they will eat us alive for the tiniest little inaccuracy, correct though your statement may have been in spirit, if not in letter.....

 

Jaro