Re: textbook correct?

[xat@inel.gov (Alden Tschaeche)]

Schoenhofer wrote:
 then the
> effect cannot be significant.
> 
> Am I the only one who thinks like that?

Absolutely not.  I agree wholeheartedly.  

The problem is that, at least in the USA, the thinking of the NCRP,
BEIR, EPA, etc. is backwards.  Instead of adopting the philosophy of:
"It's safe until demonstrated unsafe," they use the philosophy of:
"Until you can demonstrate it is safe, we will assume it isn't all the
way down to zero dose."  We must get rid of the latter philosophy!  It
is no longer useful in light of the data that have been gathered since
the 1950s and in light of how the anti nuclear people have twisted the
"may" into "does" cause harm, and the resulting public fear of radiation
and anything nuclear.  We must get rid of relative risk concepts and go
back to: "Either it's safe or it isn't."  That's the only thing the
public and regulators understand.

Charlie Meinhold, president of the NCRP, wrote me that we must have a
demonstrated threshold that is acceptable to the NCRP before he will let
the NCRP get rid of the linear hypothesis.  We all know that such a
thing is impossible.  But Charlie can't (or won't) see the implications
of trying to impose that imposibility on the nuclear industry.  His idea
is killing the industry and he refuses to acknowledge that fact.  After
all, there is such a thing as being too conservative. 

Al Tschaeche, xat@inel.gov

Al Tschaeche xat@inel.gov