Re: Intentional Use of Radionuclides for Harm

[antatnsu@pacbell.net]

McDonald, Michael P wrote:

> Sandy and Al,
>
> "Safe" and "dangerous" are terms that we may never actually be able to
> quantify, with respect to public opinion about radiation.  What the public
> needs to be taught is that there is a certain level of risk associated with
> a certain level of radiation.

Sorry, the public will never be able to use levels of risk.  All a member of the
public wants to know is: "Is it safe, or not?"  I challenge anyone to gather a
representative group of the public and see if they can understand risk let alone
use it.

> Why is it that we hear very little about
> medical rad doses,

Because no regulatory agency requires medical rad doses to be
calculated/measured and recorded.

> yet the antis will make a huge production out of recycled
> rad metal coming from Oak Ridge?

Anything to make the nuclear industry more expensive.  Stopping recycle makes it
more expensive.

> Sure, most of us agree that 5 rem is a
> "safe" dose, yet most of use would like to keep our dose less than that, and
> are willing to spend our own dollars to do it.  Why?

But, what is the answer?

> When we can answer
> that question, as an HP community, we'll be better able to relate the "risks
> vs. benefits" theme to the public, hence educate.

If we agree on a safe dose, we're done.  Risk is irrelevant.

> Wouldn't it be nice to
> hear your neighbor ask: "Hey Sandy or Al, how much risk is there associated
> with the recycled metal coming from Oak Ridge?"

But that will never happen.

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