Re: Fwd: Re: Radon and lung cancer

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

Brian_Gaulke@hc-sc.gc.ca wrote:
> 
> 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.  

I believe that Brian's interpretation of my statement is mistaken.  I
did not say that the precautionary principle in the public and worker
safety areas is wrong.  I said, as he quoted, The burden of proof is
being placed on those who say there is a threshold and low doses are
safe.  It is that idea that is absolutely 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.

Such a philosophy is impossible to comply with in cases such as low
level radiation.  Not only that, such a philosophy is not used in most
other hazardous situations or with most other hazardous materials.  If
one had to show that water were safe (water is, in certain
circumstances, deadly), it would be impossible.  So too for hydrochloric
acid and most chemicals that are hazardous.  Why then, have we singled
out radiation for this special treatment?  The ICRP and NCRP did it and
I now believe that they were wrong so to do.  And I certainly believe
they are wrong to continue to do so in the face of current knowledge. 
The nuclear industry has always "done it to itself" in this respect. 
What other industry requires hazard analyses to the extent we do?  What
other industries should?  If the automobile industry had to do hazard
analyses for each new model we would either still be driving Model T
Fords or not driving at all.  Even household toasters are hazardous? 
Should it be required to show that they are safe under all
circumstances?  Ladders are certainly unsafe sometimes.  Everything is
unsafe sometimes.  Radiation in large amounts is unsafe.  But in small
amounts, probably not and it may be beneficial or even essential to
life.

Why cannot a safety related regulatory environment require only that
unsafety be shown?  Wouldn't that make more sense? (Probably not to the
regulators who might not have so much to do then. (:-)

Sorry, Brian, and others who have the same idea, but I think we will
always disagree about this matter.  What counts is which idea has the
most currency.  I'm sorry to say that yours might right now, but I will
continue to espouse mine for as long as I am alive or until it is shown
to be wrong.  And, right now, no one can show me that mine is wrong.  In
a limited resource community bodies in the street are needed to keep
balance in the system.  The nuclear industry is not balanced now
vis-a-vis regulation.  The public is needlessly frightened about low
levels of radiation being harmful, and costs are too high.  This is
unethical as well as wrong.  All of the above is my opinion except for
the fact that the public is needlessly frightened.  That is a fact, even
the "needlessly" part.

Al Tschaeche, CHP  antatnsu@pacbell.net