[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Fire Response, Govt Reduction, Radiation Safety



Emergency response (fire, police) is WORSE with PADDED  EMPLOYEES.



Pertinent to radiation safety response to nuclear bomb terrorists (now

corralled in Iraq), I witnessed 6/25/04 the 2,000+ burned-down homes where

17 persons were burned up trying to escape the massive San Diego fire. I

flew over in the fire heliocopter with fire chiefs (who had just presented

the event to Doctors for Disaster Preparedness) and with our banquet

speaker, Dr Madeleine Cosman. She revealed critical 12 hour hold-up by Gov

Davis' environmentalist Forestry Dept. chief when fire retardant federal

tankers had to await his permission.



Audio tape describing names, places, times and non-actions are available at

$8

from jersnav@mindspring.com  With nuclear emergency, will non-response of

padded employees be better with the Terminator's state replacements?



 Howard Long



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

From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@yahoo.com>

To: "Howard Long" <hflong@pacbell.net>; "jjcohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>;

"Susan Gawarecki" <loc@icx.net>; "RadSafe" <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 8:58 AM

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





> 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



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

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/