Re: Article: Lung cancer screening raises OR LOWERS lung cancerrisk

["Howard Long" <hflong@pacbell.net>]

Good news.  This morning TV reports that Santa Clara County (San Jose, silicon valley) is greatly reducing its number of employees because of budget deficit (well known to followers of CA politics).



Leviathan, governments, Borg, The Empire has (singular because they are all the same) has an insatiable appetite for expansion. Like a cancer, it consumes its host - unless restrained by reduced revenue - taxes. 



Like Santa Clara Co, government employees controlling LDR work projects must face up to scientific benefit/damage priorities and eliminate marginal projects or lose their own jobs (the real force driving the damaging elimination of beneficial low dose waste).



Howard Long

  ----- Original Message ----- 

  From: jjcohen 

  To: Susan Gawarecki ; RadSafe ; crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM 

  Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 12:33 PM

  Subject: Re: Article: Lung cancer screening raises OR LOWERS lung cancerrisk







  ----- Original Message ----- 

  From: Susan Gawarecki <loc@icx.net>

  To: RadSafe <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>; <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>

  Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 10:17 AM

  Subject: Re: Article: Lung cancer screening raises OR LOWERS lung cancerrisk







  > Aside from questions regarding the animal models, I have a problem with "population dose" which seems to imply that if my secretary has an x-ray that it somehow increases my risk.  If epidemiologists can't coax any cause-and-effect risk relationship from doses below 125 mSv, then why assume a linear effect?  There are more important risks to spend money on reducing.  For example, around my area, about every week some 18-30 year old (generally male) commits inadvertant suicide and/or homicide by automobile.  Wouldn't pouring those resources into better driver education, law enforcement, and road improvements provide a significantly reduced risk to the general population?  

   Susan Gawarecki



  Susan, You are certainly correct! If our laws and regulation were intended to minimize overall risk, extend life expectancy, etc., the considerations you cite would drive the process, and, IMHO, that would be a good thing.  Unfortunately however, the primary objective of our current regulatory process is minimize perceived risks. If you look at the work of Slovic and others who study risk perceptions, it appears that radioactivity and nuclear operations in general are at the top of the list of things that people fear. In a democracy, legislators and regulatory agencies must be responsive to public opinion (if they wish to stay in office). Until public opinion, or the regulatory system changes, I am afraid  we will continue to make massive expenditures to reduce trivial radiation exposure, while accepting tens of thousands of traffic deaths per year as an inevitable consequence of our way of life.      Jerry Cohen