Re: Radium article

[BobCherry@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 9/15/2003 11:49:39 AM Central Daylight Time, 

JOHN.RICH@sargentlundy.com writes:

After reading the reporters reply, it seemed like he was saying that

eliminating the 1 in 10,000 chance of causing cancer in one person equals

saving 1 life.   I guess this is the first time I looked closely at the

'anti' logic.   So, not to start a whole new thread, but have any of you

already come up with a "sound-bite" size rebuttal for this argument??

Some quick thoughts on "sound bites":



How can you prove that you saved that one life? Whose life was saved? Maybe 

you spent the money and saved no one. 



The "chance" does not go to zero. It goes to 1 in 12,000, 1 in 20,000, and so 

on. How much money are you willing to spend to reduce the chance? Whose money 

are you spending? Are you willing to kick in a few bucks of your own to 

reduce that hypothetical chance (that, with inherent uncertainty, may already be 

zero)?



Bob C