[ RadSafe ] Nuclear power plants; radiological bombs not on top of list o...

[jjcohen]

Barbara,
    Well stated! When the time comes that our lawmakers decide to
actually protect the public's health, as opposed to giving the impression
that they are doing so, then perhaps statistical evidence and the
objectively determined effects of legislative decisions will become
important to them.
Until that time, it will be business as usual, and what is considered
politically best for the lawmakers will trump what is best for the
public.    Jerry Cohen


----- Original Message -----
From: <BLHamrick at aol.com>
To: <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear power plants;radiological bombs not on top
of list o...


>
> In a message dated 3/16/2005 3:16:34 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> crispy_bird at yahoo.com writes:
>
> "There's  risk everywhere; risk is a part of life," Mr.
> Chertoff said in testimony  before the Senate last
> week. "I think one thing I've tried to be clear  in
> saying is we will not eliminate every risk."
>
>
> This is the most intelligent statement I've seen with respect to our
> response to potential, future terrorist attacks.
>
> There are two things that I think have substantially reduced the risk of
> another attack with the same MO as the 9/11 attacks:  1)  we're  locking
the
> cockpits, and 2) everyone now knows that the highjackers don't
necessarily want
> to land safely (as was the prior "common" wisdom), so  passengers will be
more
> aggressive in defending the airliner.
>
> Other measures taken or proposed will only reduce additional risk in  very
> small measure.
>
> And, to bring this around to radiation safety, I think we see the same
> misguided over-reaction to potential risks in our regulation of radiation
> exposure.  Whether or not the LNT represents reality, let us at least
consider that a
> goal of limiting any increased risk of  cancer incidence to 1E-6 or less
over
> a lifetime is a silly goal (and,  I mean literally silly, as in absurdly
> humorous and frivolous and wasteful to  boot), given that the overall
lifetime
> risk of cancer is about .3.7E-1 for women  and 4.9E-1 for men (in the
U.S.).
>
> Those billions of dollars we could be spending on universal healthcare, or
> to maintain some public system of social security are just being siphoned
away
> by fear of an agent that is not actually known to cause harm in low doses
or
> at  low dose-rates.  Those dollars could prevent the very real deaths we
see
> every day from gang violence, from lack of emergency (or even routine)
> healthcare, or from lack of proper support equipment for our troops around
the
> world.
>
> Billions over the years (really, add it up), spent on hypothetical,
> unidentifiable future deaths vs. real dead people.  We need a better
system  of risk
> communication to put these things in perspective, in my opinion.
>
> Barbara L. Hamrick
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list
> radsafe at radlab.nl
>
> For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and other settings visit:
> http://radlab.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe