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

[John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>]

Let me know how things go with the police response,

fire response, etc., in the future.



--- Howard Long <hflong@pacbell.net> wrote:

> 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





=====

+++++++++++++++++++

"To be persuasive, we must be believable,

To be believable, we must be credible,

To be credible, we must be truthful."

Edward R. Murrow



-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com





		

__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 

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

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/