|
Not necessarily. I imagine that most supporters of LNT are simply following
the guidance of NCRP, EPA or the other self-serving policy groups. The
dishonesty applies to these groups who purport to have done a comprehensive
review of scientific evidence on radiation effects while summarily rejecting or
ignoring the abundant evidence contradicting LNT. I am not suggesting that they
were obligated to accept the validity of this contrary evidence, but they should
at least have offered some sound rationale for rejecting it.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 4:32
AM
Subject: Re: hospital contamination
incident
Are you implying that anyone who supports the use of LNT as a
prudent precaution for planning purposes is dishonest? Such moral
certainty and intolerance for other points of view is NOT an indication of
good science.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's
about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
Jerry Cohen wrote:
Is it ever too late
for honesty?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 4:27
AM
Subject: Re: hospital contamination
incident 1. Perception is reality; just deal with
it. This isn't going to change. The health physics profession
has gone to great lengths to establish radiation as a uniquely dangerous
hazard, which, by the way, requires lots of health physicists to protect
the public. We wrote the regulations, through groups such as the
NCRP and ICRP. It's too late to say, "just kidding." I'm sure
the "no serious consequences" philosophy is what Brookhaven management
invoked to delay installing monitoring wells for the HFBR. Now, it's
the former HFBR.
|