[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AARST Radon Scientist Claim Nation's Policy a Failure-Inflammatory Claims of Harm
Stewart,
A good argument could also be made that the risk is less than zero
(i.e. negative risk), or benefit. We fans of hormesis would have no trouble
with such an idea. Hopefully, some day the rest of the world will also see
the light. Jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: Stewart Farber <farbersa@optonline.net>
To: Richard L. Hess <lists@richardhess.com>; Radsafe
<radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: AARST Radon Scientist Claim Nation's Policy a
Failure-Inflammatory Claims of Harm
> Hi Richard:
>
> To respond to your comment.
>
> The issue of the estimate of 20,000 deaths per year from indoor radon
being upper
> bound estimates is only one [small] point about my posting vs. the AARST
and EPA
> claims of harm. The actual risk may be zero but it is probably something
above
> zero but far less than approximately 20,000 lung cancer deaths per year.
>
> My major point of my post is that take the dose and [upper bound] risk
claims at
> face value for indoor radon as a starting point. How do we as a society
spend our
> radiation protection resources to reduce radiation risk in some optimal
way from
> all sources of radiation exposure and risk?
>
> Do we spend extra hundreds of $$billions just on nuclear power plant waste
> disposal only to avoid trivial doses 10,000 years in the future or clean
up minor
> contamination at former nuclear defense sites to some near background
level? Or
> should we do sensible things in the present to operate nuclear power
plants
> safely at reasonable cost, dispose of waste in ways that make sense on
achieving
> minimal exposure at reasonable cost, and spend sensible sums of $ [thus
saved] on
> radiation reduction in medical diagnosis and treatment [avoiding millions
of
> person rems per year of useless and unnecessary radiation exposure vs. a
few
> hundred person rem in operating 60+ nuclear plants (aggregate) as well as
from
> nuclear waste disposal] and other contributors to population radiation
exposure
> like indoor radon from soil gas infiltration or radon entrained in well
water
> [levels as high as many millions of pCi/liter in some parts of New
England].
>
>
> I find it droll to consider the granite kitchen counters in the kitchens
of the
> "rich and famous". Would Barbra Streisandand , Cindy Crawford, Alec
Baldwin of
> the Tooth Fairy Project or other celebs who I'd bet have tons of granite
kitchen
> counters in their huge kitchens be so terrified and phobic about nuclear
power
> radiation expousre alone, if they knew their granite counters are in
essence
> radioactive waste resulting in direct gamma radiation and radon emission
sources
> lung dose risks to them and their families far exceeding that which they
might
> receive if living on top of or near a nuclear waste dump from the buried
waste?
>
> These are not facetious questions. They deserve consideration by those
both pro
> and anti-nuclear in making choices about what our society does to minimize
> [sometimes theoretical] risks.
>
> Stewart Farber, MS Public Health
> ===============
> 1/9/03 1:56:59 PM, "Richard L. Hess" <lists@richardhess.com> wrote:
>
> >At 01:01 PM 01/09/2003 -0800, Stewart Farber wrote:
> >>Subject: Fwd: AARST Radon Scientist Claim Nation's Policy a Failure -
E-Wire
> >>Environmental Press Release Distribution
> >>Date: 1/9/03
> >
> >In case you think it's only folks songs that cause people like me to
worry
> >about ionizing radiation...it's articles like these from "experts" that
> >cause the folk singers to write the songs <smile>.
> >
> >Stewart, of course, said something cogent in his posting about upper
> >bounds...but gosh, you know the people reading this don't know that kind
of
> >stuff and don't want to learn it. Here's a scientist from a professional
> >organization charged with knowing about this and he says there will be
more
> >deaths from this.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Richard
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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/
************************************************************************
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/