Re: Queries

[xat@inel.gov (Alden Tschaeche)]

Schoenhofer wrote:

> I was deeply worried by the original case. I refuse to think of any
> responsibility of any NCRP or ICRP or IAEA or WHO or whatsoever. This is
> simply an unexceptable and unexcusable opinion of an idiotical private
> person, who should be personally be held responsible for the damage done.

Franz, I agree with the second part of your statement.  And, I
understand how one might wish to divorce NCRP/ICRP/etc. from any
culpability in such matters.  In my philosophy, I am totally responsible
for creating my experience of living.  If I were a member of the NCRP
and I knew that certain people were taking my recommendations and
twisting them for their own ends and, as a result of such twisting, the
public got an idea totally different from the one I originally
enunciated, and, as a result, things such as we are discussing happened,
I would know I was responsible.  So are others.  But the point is, I am
too.  And it was my idea that started the whole thing.  If I did nothing
to correct the situation, I could expect other such situations to
occur.  Then I would have a choice:  do something to fix the problem, or
let it stay.  I think that's where we are today.  In my philosophy the
NCRP/ICRP/etc. have a responsibility in the matter.  I have no
indication that they think so.  Until they do, we are in the soup.

As you so poignantly describe, the public, in the aftermath of the
Chernobyl accident, clearly did not have the information necessary to
make an informed decision.  You are to be blessed for providing them the
benefits of your knowledge.   I know the conditions in the former Soviet
Union were and are very different from those in the USA, but the state
of public knowledge about radiation effects is absymal in both. 
However, in the USA, the anti nuclear people via the media have
inculcated the population with the idea that a little radiation is
harmful.  I suspect the antis are doing the same thing in other
countries, too.  If the NCRP/ICRP and the regulatory authorities would
say: "that is not so," it is possible that the public (including
physicians) would get that message and situations such as we are
discussing would not happen.  

> I am not so familiar with US regulations, which might be well known from
> previous questions, but I do not believe that any regulation proposes
> abortion at certain levels of exposure.

You are right.  There are none.  Hopefully, there will never be.

Regards, Al Tschaeche xat@inel.gov