Re: Dose vs Regs cont'd

[mozley@darius.pet.upenn.edu (P. David Mozley, M.D.)]

.... Well, we have suits focusing on damage due
>     to radiation exposure. Unless we can continue to prove to a jury or a
>judge
>     that this exposure in no way correlates to the damage identified, then I
>
>     believe that it is prudent NOT to change the dose limits and the basic
>
>     tenants of radiation protection programs.
>
>     Sandy Perle
>
Surely you must be joking.  Here in my corner of the world, ridiculous law
suits are seen daily.  Rational professionals can not base their behavior
on the worry that someone may eventually sue.  To wit, several years ago,
an astrologer in town was awarded >1 million dollars when she claimed that
an x-ray CT scan robbed her of several intrapsychic powers, even though the
procedure was medically indicated.  I could name you a gizzillion more
suits that are equally outrageous.  These suits have become a daily part of
our lives.  While worrying about a suit may be adaptive and helpful, acting
on that basis alone is another matter.  Think about the ramifications of
what you are suggesting.  If the rest of society acted according to your
prescription for logic, what would be doable?