[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



Doug,
    I am curious. How do you "definitively prove there is no risk involved" in any activity or enterprise? Could you please give us a few examples of no-risk activities?            Jerry
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 7:35 AM
Subject: RE: Apparent anti-correlations between geographic radiation and cancer are no...

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