RE: Exposure during Cross Country Flights

["Weiner, Ruth" <rfweine@sandia.gov>]

I must correct a few points in Don Kosloff's letter, and add some items.  I
have been a subscriber to Consumers' Reports for more than 20 years.  Joan
Claybrook was at one time on the Board of Directors (which makes her a
single voice but far from "the boss"), but she is not, and has never been,
Executive Director.  The E. D. is Rhoda Karpatkin.

CU has tried to give what they perceive to be a "balanced" view, but I have
written to them several times on questions like food irradiation, where they
persisted in citing the anti-nuke, anti-irradiation position as an opinion
of equal merit with the scientific opinion.  For that matter, they have been
fairly unscientific about air pollution.

Initially I got some snotty responses from some CU staff people, but my last
letter got no comment at all.  I think the staff people are the problem.   I
got no response from Ms. Karpatkin, either.  Maybe the next time there is
misinformation in CU we should all get together and write, or sign a joint
letter.   This attitude in CU distresses me because they are generally a
good source of information.

Clearly only my own opinion

Ruth F. Weiner, Ph. D.
Sandia National Laboratories 
MS 0718, POB 5800
Albuquerque, NM 87185-0718
505-844-4791; fax 505-844-0244
rfweine@sandia.gov
  

-----Original Message-----
From: dckosloff@aep.com [mailto:dckosloff@aep.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 4:55 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: Exposure during Cross Country Flights




If the exposure information is to be discussed with the general public, the
Consumer Reports Health Letter had an article discussing it in Volume 3,
Number 6, dated JUNE 1991.  This is a publication of Consumers Union, which
generally follows the anti-nuclear camp.  At the time the article was
published, Joan Claybrook, a Naderite, was the Executive Director (I
believe that was the title, she appeared to be the boss) of Consumers
Union.  The bottom line in the article is that " There's no direct proof
that exposure to 900 millirems of radiation, still a relatively low level,
would actually cause cancer." and "The occasional flier, however, has
little to worry about."   It has a table that lists "Main sources of
radiation" and "Selected one-way flights"  which lists examples from a high
of 8.0 millirems for London to LA, to a low for Miami to Tampa of 0.04
millirems.  This issue may be available from the Circulation Director,
Consumer Reports Health Letter, 101 Truman Ave, YONKERS, NY 10703-1057 for
$3.00.

The above is only my own opinion, mixed with information gathered from the
named source.

Don Kosloff, <dkosloff@ncweb.com>, 2910 Main St., Perry OH 44081-9593


************************************************************************
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