Truth over sensitivity requires that we accuse anti-nucs and ALARA
regulators of depriving the public of an "essential trace energy", electromagnetic
wave deficiency. The disease could be labeled "emdef" because of the multitude
of ill effects: slower wound healing, susceptibility to cancer, overgrowth
of endothelium in stents, etc.
Who would so restrict sunlight, causing rickets and pallor, because
too much sun can cause cancer?
Public health requires a program like iodizing salt or fortifying bread
with iron, thiamine and folic acid and fortifying milk with vitamin D and
A, (also poisonous in excess).
A bed package like Cameron's or mattress springs fortified with Co60
would enhance public health.
Truth before political correctness!
Jerry Cuttler wrote:
came across an interesting interview in the Dec 24th issue of TIME with
Bill Maher that I think is relevant to this discussion. TIME
Q: What's wrong with being politically correct? Maher
A: In a sense, we are all victims of the most successful society
ever. Society has become effete and soft as a result. Therefore
sensitivity -- feelings, not wanting to experience any kind of pain --
has become inflated. I have always defined political correctness
as the elevation of sensitivity over truth.----------------- Are
we too sensitive to offending the ICRP (and the many nuclear regulatory
organizations and the other LNT stakeholders and the anti-nuclear organizations)
to denounce the LNT hypothesis? The
French Academy of Medicine denounces
the utilization of the linear no-threshold (LNT) relation to estimate the
effect of doses lower than a few mSv (equivalent to variations of natural
radiation in France) and of doses hundreds of times lower, such those caused
by radioactive waste, or 20 times lower, such as those resulting in France
from radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident.All
scientific organizations should, at least, follow the lead of the Academy
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 7:20
Subject: Re: [rad-sci-l] FW: Munich
I suspect it isn't "the public" that "demands it." I suspect
it is the anti
nuclear organizations such as NRDC that torpedoed BRC. I think
it is time to
again petition the NRC to put in its regulations in 10 CFR 20 that
doses at its
limits are safe - not absolutely safe - but safe as in when, after
airplane crash that kills all on board, the FAA says flying is safe.
We have a
major problem here with the NRC, DOE and EPA when none of them will
at their regulated dose limits is safe. We should be able to
put them on the
defensive by saying, "Well, if working at your limits isn't safe, how
justify exposing people to doses that aren't safe. Then see what
Might that work? Happy Hollidaze. Regards. Al
Jerry Cohen wrote:
> Some time ago, in discussions with some NRC
officials, I brought up the
> point and asked what is so unique about radiation that ALARA, absolute
> safety, and
> similar concepts apply to it's regulation when such stingent control
> used in other
> areas of occupational or public safety?
> The answer I received was, "The public demands
it". For whatever reason,
> the level of fear toward radiation is so great that essentially no
> That is why we need a special agency (the NRC) in the first
> occured to me
> that if satisfaction of public attitudes and opinions was their
> why should the
> NRC bother with scientific/technological research to support development
> regulations? It would seem that public opinion surveys and such would
> much easier,
> less expensive, and directly consistant with the objective. Apparently,
> inquiry was
> considered to be absurd. I still can't figure out why.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Al Tschaeche <email@example.com>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 4:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [rad-sci-l] FW: Munich Lecture
> > That's good news. I have been puzzleing about something that
> > can illuminate. Why is it, with all we now know about radiation
> > there are so many in the NCRP, ICRP, EPA, NRC, DOE, HPS, ANS, etc.,
> > have the point of view that radiation must be totally without risk?
> > example, when I asked Meserve at a meeting why the NRC can't say
> > doses are safe, in the same manner as we say commercial flying
> > though we know people die in crashes, he said words to the effect
> > until it is proven that low doses cause no harm, the NRC will continue
> > use the LNTH and can't say any low dose is safe, meaning absolutely
> > without any harm.
> > Most health physicists I know can't say low doses are safe because
> > think "safe" means absolutely without any risk of harm. Why
> > with radiation? How can we get that point of view changed
> > is regarded as other insults which are called safe by government
> > How do we get the NCRP members to understand the idea that nothing
> > absolutely safe and that low doses of radiation radiation are as
> > safer than most other insults? How do we get the idea into
the world that
> > no one can demonstrate anything is absolutely safe, but we can
> > degrees of harm?
> > I know most of the things y'all may say, but let's hear them again.
> > Thanks. Al
> rad-sci-l mailing list