Re: www fallout (radiation, AIDS etc)

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

Philip Hypes wrote:

> >But, to require absolute proof of hormesis or other beneficial effect before
> >we can get rid of the LNTH is also irrational and irresponsible.  We should
> >put the shoe on the other foot and require absolute proof of damage at low
> >doses, based on acceptable whole human data before we are willing to spend
> >limited resources to reduce doses to very low levels.
>
> I was not saying that we should require proof of hormesis or something more
> like it than LNTH before abandoning LNTH.

I sorry I misread you. But, can't we put the shoe on the other foot and require
absolute proof of harm before we go on with the LNTH?

> I feel that we have enough
> reason to abandon LNTH right now.

Wonderful!  To what do we go?

> I doubt that anyone would claim that
> there is a "safe" level of aspartame, but we aren't saddled with LNTH based
> aspartame regulations like we are with radiation.

Exactly.  At least not yet.  I saw something in print the other day that seems to
indicate aspartame may go the way of the dodo.  Don't ask me to find it, but if it
is true, there'll be more in the press about it soon.

> All I was saying was that
> until we have proof to the contrary, the "no safe level of radiation"
> statement
> will be true in a lawyerly, weaselly nitpicking sense.

So, in the same sense of "Well, I smoked marijuana but you shouldn't hold that
against me because I didn't inhale," or, "I lied, but I didn't commit perjury," we
might say, "Well, we may not know low doses of radiation are harmful, but I never
lied telling people that they are."

> "Safe" is an absolute
> term, and as such should be used and received with due consideration.

See my other RADSAFE posting about "safe."

> >Why must we be conservative?  People who set standards for other hazardous
> >materials aren't necessarily conservative.  Why must we be? (and I know all
> >the standard answers)
>
> Even though you say you know all the standard answers, let me point out that
> it is, in fact, a matter of trust and not dose.  When you are perceived as
> being
> honest about the facts, especially when people think you don't like what
> the facts
> are saying, you build your credibility and start to gain trust.  If you are
> even
> perceived as glossing over the facts that don't support your thesis, you lose
> trust and credibility, but FAST.  Of course, activists do this all the
> time, but
> perceptions are less judgemental when someone is perceived as having very
> good motives.  "The must really care about public safety, and really believe
> there is a serious problem, if they are willing to make it their life's
> work to fight
> the injustice..."
>
> We can't expect a level playing field, but we can teach people to make good
> judgements about risk statements.

We sure haven't done that much yet.

> >> The point?  Let's be careful not to make it too easy for extremists
> >> to use our own words against us.
> >
> >Too late.  We don't correct each erroneous statement that low doses are
> >harmful so the lie is out there in the world.
>
> We haven't before, so we can't start now?

Sure we should.  Some have been for many years.  Many more need to do so.  Glad
you will?

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