Re: Queries

[Michael Kay <mikekay@teleport.com>]

Ron L. Kathren wrote:
> 
> Yes, and it's far more than a leap; it's an incredible stretch of the
> imagination bordering on (science) fiction.  The suggestion is on a par with
> the recommendation to perform the abortion in the first place.
> 
> When ,oh when, are the pots and kettles going to stop calling each other black?
> 
> Ron Kathren
> 
>   >Pauline Jones' note on February 19, 1997 telling about the aborted fetus
> >sparked another idea.  Is it too much of a leap to think that the death
> >of that fetus could be directly laid at the feet of the NCRP because of
> >the NCRP's refusal to set a threshold and the resulting idea in the mind
> >of the public that a little radiation IS harmful?  Or is that idea to
> >outre?  Al Tschaeche xat@inel.gov
> >
> >

How is this even stretching? As scientists, we are all familiar with
chaos theory. It is the small disturbances in a distant place that cause
the disasters in a far off, SEEMINGLY UNCONNECTED place. In this case I
don't even have to stretch very fa; there is a direct connection. It
seems that very few SCIENTISTS are involved in setting limits. It is
lawyers and politicians that prod the setting of limits. I see all the
famous names refusing to get together behind a proclamation that small
doses are insignificant and do not merit the cost we expend on them.
Where is that proclamation? Isn't this in effect similar to Dr.
Pauling's proclamation against air-burst testing of nuclear weapons. NO
LIVING NOBEL PRIZE WINNER REFUSED TO SIGN THAT, as well as thousands of
other scientists. 

Would you all sign such a document to attempt to stop radiation
hysteria? 
In effect we are saying we do not believe in the scientific method
because it goes against our pet beliefs. 

Michael A. Kay, ScD,CHMM