[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Next Shot
- To: radsafe <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
- Subject: RE: Next Shot
- From: GROUP RADIATION 415-744-1048 <RADIATION@epamail.epa.gov>
- Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 10:32:00 -0500 (EST)
- A1-Type: MAIL
- Alternate-Recipient: prohibited
- Disclose-Recipients: prohibited
- Hop-Count: 1
- Importance: normal
- Mr-Received: by mta CARINA; Relayed; Tue, 21 Feb 1995 10:48:28 -0500
- Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 10:47:00 -0500 (EST)
- Priority: normal
- X400-Mts-Identifier: [;82840112205991/2502963@MAIL]
This is Shelly Again,
Morally Reprehensible? Interesting concept. We get so many
calls from people who feel that it is morally reprehensible that
the government sets regulations on agents like radiation without
consulting with the people they are trying to protect. This
segment of the tax-paying public feels it is morally
reprehensible that government scientists make the decision for
them about what level of risk is acceptable and what additional
costs should be spent per life saved.
I share your concern about where money is spent and whether
we are consistent about which risks we voluntarily accept and
which we refuse to have imposed upon us. However, the government
is under attack for practices of the past, real or exaggerated,
but never-the-less, a direct result of not involving the public
in the regulatory process, relying instead on "we're your
government and we're here to protect you".
Shelly Rosenblum
Opinions expressed here are my own.