Re: www fallout (radiation, AIDS etc)

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

William Prestwich wrote:

> In response to the public conception of the word safe I urge caution. The
> absolute mentioned is a two edged sword.

True.  And when an airplane crash kills people, their loved ones sue the
airline, airplane manufacturer, etc.  However, there usually is a fairly
clear cause for the crash (yes, sometimes there isn't as in the TWA 800
accident, yet).  With low doses, there is no clear cause-effect sceneario.
The courts are still creating law in this area.  Recent cases have found for
the defendant where the plantif's dose was  low and the jury said it didn't
cause cancer.  So there is already precident for low doses not being harmful,
at least in the legal sense.

> It is my experience that the
> interpretation of any statement that an activity is not established to be
> safe is that such an activity is dangerous. I am referring to human
> activity in general here. Thus the oft-quoted statement that there is no
> safe level of radiation is interpreted as any level of radiation is
> dangerous.

Too true.

> Whatever the dictionary definition, the equating as safe with
> zero risk is unsustainable from a societal viewpoint because taken to its
> logical conclusion leads to irrational conclusions.

I don't follow this.  If "safe" to the public means zero risk, lets let low
doses be like everything else that has "zero risk" because it is safe.  Like
climbing a ladder to fix the roof, flying in airplanes, driving, etc.  People
say flying is safe.  Driving is safe.  Climbing on ladders is safe.  Why
can't low doses be safe, too?

> If any level of
> radiation is unsafe, ie harmful on the basis of the dictionary, then we
> can all sue each other for the damage resulting from our mutual
> irradiation resulting primarily from the 1.4 MeV gamma ray from naturally
> occuring 40K.

Maybe all the people who have cancer should do that.  Then the absurdity of
calling low doses dangerous would be exposed.  How about a class action
suit.  All the people of the earth against all the other people of the earth
for exposing each other to deadly radiation?  I like it.  I like it. The
lawyers would get richer.

> There are plenty other absurd scenarios such as this which
> follow from strict adherence to such a definition.

So, we should say low doses are safe.

Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net

>


begin:          vcard
fn:             Al Tschaeche
n:              Tschaeche;Al
org:            Nuclear Standards Unlimited
email;internet: antatnsu@postoffice.pacbell.net
title:          CEO
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard