[ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium Inhalation Poisoners

[Muckerheide, James]

Sure. I was involved at the time.  And adopting that in the 2001 revision to
my ANS statement. 
 
But in 2000-2001 the HPS guys talking to Congress, including one of the
authors, and in other vebues, denied it meant what it says when it came to
arguing against extreme rad protection standards. 
 
________________________________

From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com]
Sent: Tue 6/28/2005 5:13 PM
To: Muckerheide, James; bobcherry at cox.net; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium Inhalation Poisoners



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