Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

2 Comments

  1. “We, as health physicists and radiation safety specialists, must contribute to the conversation on risk, including, and perhaps especially, by acknowledging the competing risks in any given circumstance. When our focus becomes too narrow, we diminish the value of our information.”

    That is quite refreshing, Ms. Hamrick. So much better than the guy who recently responded to Amelia Cook’s recent question about how much dose is tolerable (ICRP aside). He said something like, “You must minimize your dose, period.”

  2. YES!!!! YES!!!! YES!!!!!

    Living is RISKY! We ALL Die. The risk of dying is 100% the only questions are how long it will take and what will be the final cause.

    Simply stating that something is risky is malfeasence since people automatically assume that if we state there is a risk we mean that the risk is higher than other normal risks in everyday life. In this case, the risk is not even measurable since it is lost in the background noise, and this is the context of a very low normal cancer risk in Japan generally. It is also in the context of the death of 15,000 people from water.

    Thank you for a clear statement and some sense in this area.

Comments are closed.