[ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium Inhalation Poisoners

[John Jacobus]

My, how cynical.  Have you read the HPS Position
Paper, "Radiation Risk in Perspective," August 2004
http://hps.org/documents/radiationrisk.pdf
I believe that it is similar to the one published by
the American Nuclear Society.

--- "Muckerheide, James" <jimm at wpi.edu> wrote:

> I agree, to a point.  Most HPs do exactly that. 
> Many don't.  But the failure
> is in the standard-setting that generates the
> massive funding for protecting
> against extreme limits, e.g., EPA set YM limits at 4
> mrem/year in water, and
> 4 mrem/year from radium in water, now costing
> municipal water systems $100s
> millions. Other than a few personal opinions bandied
> about, where were the
> HPs?  The anti-nuke DOE Secretary (Richardson) used
> an anti-nuke (Michaels)
> to work outside DOE to collect discredited papers in
> a report and claimed
> DOE/AEC workers are 'cold war victims' (with doses
> below established limits).
> We could get no HPs to speak out.  Many HPs are out
> fear-mongering the public
> about "site cleanups" at doses that are much less
> than 1% of the variation in
> background radiation.  The core problem is the lack
> of integrity in
> responding to the specifically dishonest assessments
> produced by the closed
> NCRP/ICRP et al. 'advising' (and controlling rad
> protection appointments in)
> national and int'l govt agencies.  There is no HP
> constraint on dose limits
> getting ever more extreme (generating jobs).  The
> only limit is to avoid the
> premise that radiation should be prohibited.Will HPs
> accept the conclusion
> that 1-2% of cancers in nuclear workers are caused
> by radiation?  While
> knowing that nuclear wokers have lower cancer rates
> than non-nuclear workers?
>  
> Regards, Jim Muckerheide
> ________________________________
> 
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of
> bobcherry at cox.net
> Sent: Tue 6/28/2005 12:49 PM
> To: radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium
> Inhalation Poisoners
> 
> 
> You know that if health physicists were a
> disreputable group (and I maintain
> that we aren't), then we would concede all of the
> activists' alarms and
> hysteria about severe radiation hazards at levels of
> ionizing and nonionizing
> radiation exposure less than 10 or so times above,
> at, or below environmental
> levels. Then we could increase our salaries,
> membership in our profession,
> span of control, prestige, number of academic and
> leadership appointments,
> number and value of research grants, etc.,
> accordingly.
> 
> . . .

+++++++++++++++++++
"Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com


		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com