Re: Ohio legislation

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Albert Vest responds:
 (Carl says:)
>>Experience has shown me, though, that "dangerous" could mean 
>>anything above background.

>...Statements like that have the potential to turn a case of latent 
>radiophobia to an acute one, quoted out of context.

Surely the quotes on "dangerous" are sufficient. Radiophobes aren't going to
be influenced; and I hope we don't expect see listserv messages used as
public arguments. There is a danger in taking this entire ludicrous public
reaction and government regulatory field day on radiation too seriously, and
of being so careful in the use of language that the responsible
professionals continue to be unheard in the public debate.

>>The Health Physics Society just released a position statement 
>>that would apply here, I believe.  Has this
>>been considered by our legislators?

>If not, maybe we ought to be sending e-mail (the preferred mode of 
>communication of members of this list?) to "our" legislators. 

Does this mean you have read it? (I haven't yet) and that you find it 
useful to the public debate for legislators? What are your
reactions/comments on the statement? Not all the HP statements have been
particularly useful in the public discussion of radiation risks and public
policy. (Again, careful wording not clear or understood. Is this better?)

>Albert Vest                        avest@ohio-state.edu
>Office of Radiation Safety               614-292-0122
>The Ohio State University          FAX:  614-292-0970
>Columbus OH 43210-1239             "My opinions only"
>     "If we can't afford it, it's not ALARA!!"

I thought that was: "If we CAN afford it, it's not ALARA!!"

Regards,

Jim Muckerheide                |  jmuckerheide@delphi.com
"Apply 4 I's:  Integrity, Information, Intelligence, Insight"