UPDATE: Resolving issue of science of biological effects of low level radiation
A couple of weeks ago, Atomic Insights published an article about an initiative by past presidents and fellows of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) to encourage the organization to push for efforts to resolve the issue of the science of the biological effects of low level radiation.
Part of the effort includes gathering signatures from people that support the radical notion that science, not politics, should be the basis for regulations governing exposure to radiation and for information materials that explain the effects of radiation to non professionals.
Initially, the letter only accepted signatures from current and past ANS members. The initiative leaders have modified the letter and the web form to accept signatures from people who are members of 150 different organizations of nuclear and radiation professionals. There is a catchall category “Friends of Nuclear Energy/Medicine” for nuclear professionals who are not members of any of the listed organizations.
Please go and read the letter. If you agree that it proposes an important initiative that you can support, please sign it.
If you were already a supporter of the actions suggested in the letter but could not sign because you have no ANS affiliation, this is your chance to express your view.
Please notice that the letter provides alternative methods to sign that do not require you to enter information into a web-based form.
“There is a catchall category “Friends of Nuclear Energy/Medicine” for nuclear professionals who are not members of any of the listed organizations.”
I had the audacity to pretend that non-nuclear professionals (such as myself) might call themselves friends of nuclear energy and medicine.
I bet Bob is going to be disappointed that he can only sign one time.
Glad to have the opportunity to fill out the form since I am not a member of ANS. However was disappointed that ASME was not included as one of the groups.
No IEEE either…
AIAA might be a little farfetched, but a lot of aerospace engineers have migrated to other fields.
Wouldn’t hurt to have the American Bar Association on there.
IMO, a drop down menu with 150 choices only gets less useful with every addition.
Well that’s a good point too.
Well, I thought it was a stronger message to the ANS leaders when it came from actual ANS members.
Not that support and opinions from non-members aren’t helpful; but I think there is value in a message from the “constituents.”
Just my 2 cents…
ASME not on the list, but I signed anyway.
Also the premise seemed odd in that the petition asks ANS to debunk someone else’s “Hypothesis”. Doesn’t it seem like if you have a “Hypothesis” then the burden of proof is on you to defend it yourself, or to withdraw your hypothesis? Something just seems extremely dysfunctional about this whole situation.
Comments are closed.
Recent Comments from our Readers
The Clinton Nuclear Plant also in Illinois was shutdown essentially for almost 2 years before it was taken over by…
Good Podcast – Very informative One thing that was not discussed is how to deal with a particular fear that…
Renewables people are masters in marketing. Unreliable intermittent generators whose output is all over the place, and usually badly correlated…
Looking at their lineup, Westinghouse seems bound and determined to keep Gen IV in its “place” which is apparently the…
So they are developing a scaled down version of the AP1000, which is a scaled up version of the AP600,…