Re: Radiation hormesis

[Alan Watts <wattsa@oak.cats.ohiou.edu>]

With this kind of attitude, why not say that everything is harmful.  After
all,  all things that are beneficial are harmful at some level.  What is
critical is being educated on the beneficial/harmful levels.

Alan Watts
Radiation Safety Officer
Ohio University

>In a message dated 5/4/99 6:04:57 PM EST, 7pe@ornl.gov writes:
>
><< Why should the public take on any additional risk, no matter how trivial in
> some people's opinion, to assist the nuclear/defense industry in getting
> rid of their contaminated scrap?  The only measurable cost benefit is to
> industry, none to the public (unless there IS a hormetic effect). >>
>
>Even IF there is a demonstrable hormetic effect, how does one assure that the
>"beneficial" dose from contaminated scrap metal plus nuclear power plants
>plus fossil-fuel power plants plus radwaste disposal facilities plus
>household radon plus doctors' offices plus dentists' offices plus high-flying
>airliners plus...plus...plus...is still "beneficial"?
>
>An exposure which ALONE might have a beneficial effect, might have a
>detrimental effect when combined with all other exposures.  Unless the
>proponents of radiation hormesis can assure that their proposed contribution
>to the recipient's total exposure still has a cumulative hormetic effect,
>hormesis should remain an interesting, but practically useless phenomena.
>
>Glenn
>GACarlson@aol.com
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html



************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html