[LINK] Radiation damage assessed differently.

Kim Holburn kim at holburn.net
Sat May 21 22:07:03 AEST 2011


I was reading this article :
http://www.boingboing.net/2011/05/20/why-texas-tried-to-h.html

> Why Texas tried to hide drinking water radiation from the EPA


and noticed this paragraph:

> In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear crisis, we've talked a bit about the fact that assessing radiation dose and risk isn't necessarily a clear-cut thing. Dose might be relatively easy to measure in an individual, but there is debate about what that dose means. Especially on an individual basis. This is why the World Health Organization, Greenpeace, the TORCH report commissioned by the European Green Party, and a group of Russian doctors all report very different estimates for how many people were killed as a result of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

> Those differences don't necessarily mean that one group is lying or trying to  cover something up. Instead, they reflect different ways of assessing risk, and it really is not clear who is right. You can't just assume the lowest estimates are the correct ones, and likewise, you can't make the same assumption about the highest estimates. There's space for reasonable people to disagree.

Which reminded me of discussions we have had before on link.

-- 
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
T: +61 2 61402408  M: +61 404072753
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request 













More information about the Link mailing list