Re: Linear Hypothesis... -Reply

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Franz, I propose instead to tell the public the truth and let them decide. 

Rationalizing why "they wouldn't believe" if you told them the truth is
disingenuous.   Try honesty instead. Don't blame the public for believing what 
"science" tells them! And don't insult their intelligence about dealing with
the truth. 

> Dear ??????
> 
> Your comment is excellent - I followed the discussion and I am tired to read
> all the time the scientific stuff - nobody of the public cares about any LNT
> hypothesis - nobody knows about it. There are many other points, related to
> questions of mass media (like comics!), social questions, economic
> questions, socioeconomic questions, distrust into politics, science, and so
> on, and so on. When you define a threshold of x mrem/h, Bq/kg, mCi/kg, Sv/y
> and what so ever - nobody of the public will care for it. Everybody will
> believe, that these thresholds have been set to accomodate the industry, the
> government, the scientists. There is a common mistrust in any questions of
> limits - the public does not believe in them. When the limit for Cs-137 plus
> Cs-134 in meat was set im the European Union at 600 Bq/kg, people were
> searching (and demanding) to be supplied with meat of 0 (zero) Bq/kg.
> Whatever the contamination of milk powder was from the European Union - the
> countries being in need of milk powder bought it from Australia and New
> Zealand, where there was zero contamination. It did cost the same prize.
> Developing countries refused to accept shipments of milk powder intended for
> caritative help, because they suspected the milk powder to be contaminated
> and only therefore being donated. 
> 
> One does not make things better by accusing the authorities of playing a
> negative role. There are enough excellent scientists in the international
> committees (like ICRP) and involved in legislation. In my country (Austria)
> all proposals regarding laws and ordinances  h a v e  to be sent to the
> relevant institutions affected by them for comment (research institutes,
> medical doctors associations, industry, etc. etc.). I have once received a
> copy of a proposal for drinking water radioactivity put forward by the EPA -
> and I think to remember that everybody, who wanted to comment on it was
> invited to do so. Legislation in the USA seems to me not to be of the
> dictatoric type. 
> 
> Why should not doses be reduced, if it can be done easily? I sure do not
> suopport ideas to reduce doses at whatever costs. But I cannot understand
> the discussion - which is also going on in Europe - to absolutely reduce the
> numbers of dosemeters for staff involved in radiological work - just to save
> a few dollars - awithout caring that a law suite can cost the company
> millions of dollars. Have these people forgot to make a risk - benefit
> calculation?
> 
> What to do? Educate the public? Yes - but not in the way trying to show
> them, how stupid they are and that we scientists know everything better -
> simply because we  a r e   the scientists. 
> 
> 
> P.S. Please would you, dear radsafers, all sign your contributions, so that
> we know, who sent her/his comment, the affiliation, the address .......
> 
> Franz
> Schoenhofer
> Habichergasse 31/7
> A-1160 WIEN
> AUSTRIA/EUROPE
> Tel./Fax:       +43-1-4955308
> Tel.:           +43-664-3380333
> e-mail:         schoenho@via.at