Re[4]: textbook correct?

[azapantis@mgdestmx01.erin.gov.au]

Another Alex from down under wrote:

>So in this particular case,  no,  I don't agree that because we
>can't detect the risk that it doesn't exist.

I agree!! I said that it is not significant not non-existent. 
  

>You could say that a 1E-4 risk is insignificant in comparision with
>a natural risk of 1 in 4....

I agree again!! In fact, that was my point.


>It seems to me that by arguing that low doses of radiation are
>safe all we will achieve is to lose credibility with the general
>public.   I think it would be much more profitable to show that
>the risks of many practices,  even computed with the LNT risk
>factors,  are less than the non-nuclear alternatives.   Nobody
>can rationally argue against that one.

Safe is a subjective word. So we MUST compare risks from radiation to risks from 
hazards with which the public can identify. This is important if we are to put
the risks in perspective. You are right that no one can rationally argue against 
that. However, many people are not rational when the R word is involved. Also,
people tend to become less rationale as one moves from medical applications to
industrial applications to uranium mining & milling to nuclear power. 

But I digress.. I agree with what Alex has written. I think that if Alex read my
last message again, he would also agree with what I had written.

So if we all agree why are we cluttering up this discussion group??

Regards


Alex Zapantis                                  
Environmental Radiation Officer     
Office of the Supervising Scientist		
40 Blackall Street 														
Barton ACT 2600 AUSTRALIA 
            
Email: azapantis@dest.gov.au
Fax : (int+) 61 6 274 1519
Phone: (int+) 61 6 274 1642

The Office of the Supervising Scientist is a Branch of the 
         Federal Environment Protection Group