Re: Commenting on USNRC Environmental Impact Statements

[Ted de Castro <tdc@XRAYTED.COM>]

This is so totally amazing.  Here we have a theory/hypothesis that the

best science we have can't even prove the sign or shape of the response

function and for which the strongest proponents argue that it MAY not

actually be true - but it is the prudent thing to do "just to be on the

safe side" and here the NRC is trying to give it 3 significant digits!!



The sheer inumeracy behind such an effort would be laughable if the

matter didn't involve so serious a consequence!



How can we ever argue that something isn't so or isn't proven when the

"officials" preach it to 3 significant figures?



Why don't they just go for .0006 and be that much more safe (unless

hormesis is true).  At least it wouldn't look as inane!

************************************************************************

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/