Re: Fiscal responsibility (was Re: Scientific responsibility)

[BLHamrick@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 6/18/2003 5:23:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, lists@richardhess.com writes:



<<We are using a "prudent precaution" that, taken at its face value, is indeed prudent. However, when cost is factored into the prudent precaution, it may be that scarce funds are being spent on an over-cautious risk management scenario in one area 

while starving other, more rewarding areas of risk management.>>



I'm not convinced it is prudent to assume harmful effects down to zero dose, even ignoring the enormous costs of this policy.  The fact of the matter is in the low dose, low dose-rate realm, there is no consensus on whether or not there are any health effects, detrimental or beneficial.  Given that, I do not think it is necessarily prudent to assume harm.



Because what is actually "prudent" under these circumstances cannot defined, society should turn to other considerations, such as Richard suggests, and factor in cost versus potential harm, as well as cost versus potential deprivation of benefit if they elect to continue to use LNT as the default model.



Barbara

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

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/