You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #75: Wow. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
caraher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-03-09 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
75. Wow.
You can certainly choose to believe the "European Committee on Radiation Risk" (which to be clear, has no affiliation with the EU or any government or large scientific body. But unless you are either addicted to conspiracy theories or uninterested in hearing anything about radiation exposure other than that it's the most deadly thing in the universe, I wouldn't recommend it. Their whole purpose is less to arrive at realistic assessments of radiation risks than to come up with arguments that the risks are greater than we think.

From the UK Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters (CERRIE)analysis of ECRR's critique of standard radiation risk assessments:

In conclusion, the weight of evidence and considerations of biological plausibility argue against ECRR's thesis that ICRP's risk assessment methodology seriously underestimates risks from internal emitters. Furthermore, ECRR's proposed methodology is arbitrary, and does not have a sound scientific basis. There are many misrepresentations of ICRP, misunderstandings, inconsistencies and unsubstantiated claims in the ECRR report. It compares poorly with the detailed justification and referencing of published data characteristic of ICRP reports. In general, there is a good understanding of the risks associated with exposure to ionising radiation. Uncertainties in dose estimates for internal emitters are greater than for external radiation because of the necessity of estimating the time-course of exposure of different body tissues, but these uncertainties do not correspond to the large underestimates of risk claimed by ECRR. For these reasons the ECRR report cannot provide a basis for changing radiological protection standards.


Not surprisingly, ECRR condemns CERRIE in the strongest possible terms. They could scarcely do otherwise, since obviously all the mainstream radiation risk assessment organizations are clearly part of the same conspiracy to maintain silence while the nuclear industry murders us all.

The sad part of all this is that like all industries, the nuclear industry stands in great need of close regulation on safety issues. When paranoia replaces reason among loud voices critical of their activities, industry is more likely to get away with dismissing even the legitimate worries as unworthy of attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC