[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
AW: AW: "The Bell Tolls for LNT"
Franz Schoenhofer
PhD, MR iR
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna
AUSTRIA
phone -43-0699-1168-1319
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: AnaLog Services, Inc. [mailto:AnaLog@logwell.com]
> Gesendet: Montag, 25. Oktober 2004 00:53
> An: Franz Schönhofer; 'Maury Siskel'
> Cc: 'Carol Marcus'; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> Betreff: Re: AW: "The Bell Tolls for LNT"
>
> How can it make sense to defend LNT if it turns out to be wrong / bad
> science?
>
---------------------
Yes, i f it turns out..... The "battle" is not yet won.......
Until now it seems to me that everybody has been rather happy with the
limits derived from the LNT via risk-factors. Both for nuclear power
plant workers and the public there seems to be no problem to keep the
limits. So, where are the advocates for whome to allow for higher
limits? Where are they necessary???????
Any public health organisation as well as any occupational one is trying
to cut down exposure to toxic material well below the maximum
permissible limits. Why should this be different concerning radiation?
I personally believe that a lot of the problems we face now concerning
radiation and radioactive material originated in the deliberate
agitation of former health physicists to dramatize and exaggerate the
impact of radiation. This gave them probably an outstanding position in
the community and a good income, but to us, who have to work with it
nowadays this is a really big drawback. Radon and radium in drinking
water is regarded as an extreme problem - but obviously nitrate or
pesticides are not. What is the difference?
I really believe that most problems we are facing nowadays in public
acceptance is derived from the totally wrong perception of "nuclear" as
being such an exceptional risk compared with other toxic substances.
Many radiation scientists have done a lot to implement this believe into
the public.
Best regards,
Franz
> Syd H. Levine
> AnaLog Services, Inc.
> Phone: 270-276-5671
> Telefax: 270-276-5588
> E-mail: analog@logwell.com
> URL: www.logwell.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Franz Schönhofer" <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>
> To: "'Maury Siskel'" <maurysis@ev1.net>
> Cc: "'Carol Marcus'" <csmarcus@ucla.edu>;
<radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 1:55 PM
> Subject: AW: AW: "The Bell Tolls for LNT"
>
>
> >
> >
> > Franz Schoenhofer
> > PhD, MR iR
> > Habicherg. 31/7
> > A-1160 Vienna
> > AUSTRIA
> > phone -43-0699-1168-1319
> >
> > Dear Maury, dear collegues,
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification. I received the text of the paper from
a
> > RADSAFEr and after having had a not too short glance at it, the
content
> > is without doubt to be taken more serious than the title.
> > As a former legislator I still defend, and will do so in the future,
the
> > LNT, because it is the only justifiable approach to legislationally
> > fixed maximum permissible levels. This does not only apply to
> > radioactivity, but to all other toxicological elements or compounds.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Franz
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu [mailto:owner-
> > > radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu] Im Auftrag von Maury Siskel
> > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 24. Oktober 2004 18:53
> > > An: Franz Schönhofer
> > > Cc: 'Carol Marcus'; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> > > Betreff: Re: AW: "The Bell Tolls for LNT"
> > >
> > > Franz,
> > > The journal , Operational Radiation Safety, is a peer-reviewed
> > > publication of the Health Physics Society. The headline certainly
is
> > > taken seriously because of the expanding mountain of evidence
> > > supporting the conclusion that LNT is untenable as a scientific
> > > hypothesis and as a cost effective regulatory tool. This dog is
beyond
> > > bothering the postman -- he is yanking on the alarm bell rope
loudly.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Maury Siskel maurysis@ev1.net
> > >
> > > ==================
> > > Franz Schönhofer wrote:
> > >
> > > >Franz Schoenhofer
> > > >PhD, MR iR
> > > >Habicherg. 31/7
> > > >A-1160 Vienna
> > > >AUSTRIA
> > > >phone -43-0699-1168-1319
> > > >
> > > >Carol,
> > > >
> > > >What is "delightful"? That the article reflects your own opinion?
> > > >
> > > >I do not know the "Operational Radiation Safety" journal, nor
have I
> > > access to it. Therefore I cannot enjoy it. I think that the
majority
> > of
> > > RADSAFErs face the same problem.
> > > >
> > > >"The bell tolls for LNT" does not seem to me to be a headline
from a
> > > >radiation protection journal to be taken seriously. It sounds for
me
> > to
> > > be in the category of "Dog bites postman".
> > > >
> > > >This seems to be just another occasion to caution scientists to
> > accept
> > > both enthusiastic pro and con articles in non-scientific journals.
> > > >
> > > >Best regards,
> > > >
> > > >Franz
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > >>Von: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu [mailto:owner-
> > > >>radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu] Im Auftrag von Carol Marcus
> > > >>Gesendet: Samstag, 23. Oktober 2004 18:21
> > > >>An: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> > > >>Betreff: "The Bell Tolls for LNT"
> > > >>
> > > >>Oct. 23, 2004
> > > >>
> > > >>Hello Radsafers:
> > > >>
> > > >>Just read a delightful article by Don. J. Higson in the
November,
> > 2004
> > > >>issue of Operational Radiation Safety (pp. S47-S50). It is
entitled
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >"The
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Bell Tolls for LNT". Enjoy!
> > > >>
> > > >>Ciao, Carol
> > > >>
> > > >>Carol S. Marcus, Ph.D., M.D.
> > > >><csmarcus@ucla.edu>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>***********************************************************************
> > *
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>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/
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>***********************************************************************
> > *
> > > >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/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
************************************************************************
> > > 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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
************************************************************************
> > 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/
> >
> >
>
************************************************************************
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/