Re:: linear hypothesis

["TED S. BOHN" <BST@inel.gov>]

      Radiological Engineering (bst@inel.gov)
      6-1279  MS 4138  FAX 6-8959  Pager 5841
To carry it a little further, it seems that there is little or no PR for
the advantages of nuclear power.  Those who are knowledgable are essentially
quiet and seemed gagged in their communication to the public of this or any
other theory while the anti-nuke faction rant and rave and are BELIEVED by
the public.  Where is the "Rush Limbaugh" for nuclear energy?Personally,
I don't think the frightened public would believe any non-conservative
theory without first being positively nuclear PR program.

*** Reply to note of 10/17/95 07:28

From: Joel T. Baumbaugh
To: RADSAFE --INELMAIL RADSAFE

Subject: Re:: linear hypothesis
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 95 17:49:25 -0500
Sender: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
From: "ALDEN N TSCHAECHE" <XAT@inel.gov>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: linear hypothesis


You wrote:
______________________________________________________________
****  Radiation  protection standards are not "scientific."  They
never  have  been. The ICRP and NCRP have taken such levels  over
those  time frames is, in fact, harmful, I think it is  unethical
and  immoral  to frighten members of the public into  thinking  a
little radiation, no matter how small can and will hurt you.

****It  is  even worse for knowledgeable individuals to let  that
idea  remain  loose in the world. If scientists,  regulators  and
other  knowledgeable people would, in a concerted manner, work to
eliminate  the corruption of the idea that a little radiation MAY
cause  harm  into a little radiation WILL cause harm, I might  be
more charitable toward the hypothesis.
_______________________________________________________________


     I agree, I agree, I agree.... - whole heartily!!!!!!!!!!!!!