|
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
|