[Fwd: LNT]

["H.Wade Patterson" <hwade@talltown.com>]

Roger Gelder wrote:
> 
> Some 10 years ago, our group were commissioned by
> the relevant UK government body to study the radiological
> impact arising from transport of radioactive material by sea,
> into, out of and around the UK. It was decided to keep the two
> relevant trade unions informed, one of which had a fearsome
> reputation at the time, of upset if their members were considered
> to be adversely affected.
> I suggested inviting them to have a representative with me on
> every vessel visited where they had members as crew. All were
> satisfied by the demonstrable results on each occasion.
> I still keep the acknowledgement sent to me after a copy of the
> final report was sent out:
>         "Dear Sir, Thank you for your report which is acceptable"
> This from a guy on whom you might have modelled Sadam Hussein.
> 
> If you want to convince people, show them the results, as directly
>as possible.
> A year ago I had published dose rates from spent fuel flasks out
> to distances of 50 and 70 metres, together with the data for dose
> assessment - 10 microSv/year was the highest. No complaints
> so far and a simple reference for anti-nuclear fears.
> Comparisons are always made with natural background radiation
> - another 10 on top of 2,200 (average UK) which is varying by at
> least 100 anyway.
> We seem to be getting there.
>         Roger Gelder

I couldn't agree more. My own experiences with the public is that,
except the usual lunatic fringe, they are ready willing and able to make
up their own minds if they are just presented with the raw, unedited,
unexplained data. If this is done, the public will never accept the LNT
because there's no data to support it.

-- 
"When we hold a conclusion inviolate, sometimes the assumptions require
certain adjustments."  Harold Hopfenberg, Prof. of Chem. Eng., N.
Carolina State University.

H.Wade Patterson
1116 Linda Lane
Lakeview OR 97630
ph 541 947-4974