RE: Apparent anti-correlations between geographic radiation and cancer are no...

[Doug Aitken <daitken@sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com>]

At 09:57 AM 1/13/2003 -0500, BERNARD L COHEN wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Doug Aitken wrote:
>
> But unnecessary or deliberate exposure to hazardous agents - where the
> risk-benefit balance is not clear (and in this I guess I would throw
> man-made radiation) - would seem to be unwise.

        --Nuclear power causes a hundred times fewer deaths than fossil
fuel burning, and increses our radiation exposure by less than 1% -- does
that make use of nuclear power unwise?

Gee!

Sometimes I get the feeling that people are so polarized that they do not

even try to understand a comment...


:..unnecessary or deliberate exposure to hazardous agents - where the

risk-benefit balance is not clear .."


I don't think anyone (on this forum) would argue that the emissions from

coal burning power stations is more hazardous than (well managed) nuclear

power. But until someone can definitively prove that there is no risk

involved, a deliberate or unnecessary exposure would seem

to me to be foolish.


Regards

Doug






Doug

Aitken

     

        

Schlumberger

Drilling and Measurements QHSE

Advisor                      


Phone (Sugarland):

   

281

285-8009 

Phone (Home office):

   

713

797-0919

    

Phone (Cell):

  

        

713

562-8585

        

Principal

E-mail: jdaitken@earthlink.net

        

Schlumberger:

daitken@sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com