Re: Fwd: Re: Radon and lung cancer

[Brian_Gaulke@hc-sc.gc.ca]

Brian Gaulke
03/04/98 11:30 AM

On March 3, 1998, Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net wrote:

"The burden of proof should be on those who say a low dose of radiation is
harmful.  Instead, the burden of proof
is being placed on those who say there is a threshold and low doses are
safe.  The latter is absolutely wrong!
The NCRP, ICRP, EPA, etc. have corrupted the American idea that one is
innocent until proven guilty."

I have to strongly disagree with the statement that use of the
precautionary principle in the public and worker safety
arenas is wrong.  It is entirely appropriate in a safety related regulatory
 environment, that  the burden of proof rests on
those who would introduce a practice to show that that practice is safe.

Brian R. Gaulke, CHP
Head, Dosimetry Section
Radiation Protection Bureau
Health Canada
brian_gaulke@hc-sc.gc.ca