Re: e-mail addresses, JCAHO, and the Trilateral Committee

["Russ Meyer" <CMEYER@brc1.tdh.texas.gov>]

> Date:          Fri, 27 Jan 95 03:03:40 -0600
> Reply-to:      radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> From:          John Goldsmith <gjohn@bgumail.bgu.ac.il>
> To:            Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject:       Re: e-mail addresses, JCAHO, and the Trilateral Committee

>     Some of us readers may not know the nature, status, or authority
> of JCAHO..is it the Joint Com mittee on  Alternative Health Outcomes ?
> If health based standards are being seriously considered, by what mechanism
> does epidemiological input get considered ?  Close as some of us in
> epidemiology feel to public health, there is sometimes the feeling that
> neatness and short term effects are the bywords of purely engineering-based
> exposure standards, and that protection from possible long-term effects
> is given second place, partly because of the real difficulties in
> interpreting epidemiological data.  In my view, the only answer that
> makes sense is to include epidemiologists in the group  evaluating and
> recommending standards, and to get away from body-counting and put more
> emphasis on biological indicators of exposure and effect.
>                              John Goldsmith, M.D., Epidemiology Unit
>                              Ben Gurion U. of the Negev, Beer Sheva
>                              Israel
dear dr. goldsmith,

you should be so lucky as to live to 86 and die of an hypothetical
case of cancer!  in a world where safety requlations are truly based
on risk, even people who had received Sv size doses would not
qualify for concern. death from Pb-206 is much more of a reality in
yours and my countries, than E-2 per Sv.  in a world of limited
financial resources, it is criminal to spend money on assumptions
layered upon hypothesis when so many people are dying from real and
preventable causes.  wouldn't you agree?>







Russ
cmeyer@brc1.tdh.texas.gov
(512)834-6688