AW: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Chernobyl's Reduced Impact

[Rainer.Facius at dlr.de]

John:

 

"Do you know of anyone who has a fear of chronic low level ionizing radiation exposure?"

 

Maybe the American media and the public in your personal perception retain a more rational stance regarding chronic low level ionizing radiation. Similarly, maybe your clientele - educated trained radiation workers - indeed knows that neither theoretical nor empirical reasons exist to worry about health detriment from such exposures below say between 10 and 50 mSv annually (I concede that the true value of a proper threshold is subject to scientifically legitimate debate).

 

In Europe and particularly in Germany the examples to the contrary abound. Hardly a month elapses where radiophobia is not propagated by media reports - often backed up by reference to peer reviewed nonsense-papers. A not too old example that comes to my mind was the following excerpt from the German Times or Newsweek Magazine, DER SPIEGEL:

 

<quote>

Tausende verstrahlt - weil Arztpraxen ums Überleben kämpfen

Von Markus Becker <mailto:markus_becker at spiegel.de>  

Mehr als 2000 Deutsche pro Jahr erkranken durch Röntgenuntersuchungen an Krebs. In einer internationalen Studie belegt Deutschland damit den europäischen Spitzenplatz. Der Hauptgrund: In zu vielen Arztpraxen müssen sich teure Geräte bezahlt machen.

<end quote>

 

The message: More than 2000 Germans get cancer each year due to unnecessary/excessive radiodiagnostic exposures which are undertaken for the sole purpose to help radiologist pay there equipment. 

 

The peer-reviewed nonsense paper which DER SPIEGEL quotes (and this time it is no misquote) to substantiate the ridiculous claim is: Berrington de Gonzalez A, Darby S, Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. The Lancet 363(2004)354-351

 

Corrective, dissenting correspondences to the contrary have been printed by The Lancet, yet they NEVER make it to the public media.

 

Another even more ridiculous example of radiophobia was generated by these (in Germany) widely publicized events - like the "verstrahlte Molke" (just 3 of over 300 hits you find when searching in Google for "castor polizei verstrahlt"):

 

/**************/

"Polizei fürchtet Castor-Strahlen" (police afraid of CASTOR radiation)  

http://www.akweb.de/ak_s/ak442/18.htm 

 

/***************/

Castor-Behälter in Ahaus verstrahlt  (CASTOR container overexposed)

http://www.asamnet.de/oeffentl/bi/castorahaus.htm <http://www.asamnet.de/oeffentl/bi/castorahaus.htm>  

 

/******************************/

Verstrahlter Behälter entdeckt (overexposed container detected) 

dpa Wiesbaden. Bei der Hanauer Nukleartransportfirma NCS ist ein radioaktiv verunreinigter Transportbehälter aus den USA entdeckt worden. Das gab das hessische Umweltministerium gestern in Wiesbaden bekannt. Die Belastung des Behälters von 74 Becquerel pro Quadratzentimeter sei nach Aussage von Experten nicht so gefährlich, daß eine Warnung der Bevölkerung nötig gewesen wäre. Es habe keinerlei Gefahr bestanden, sagte ein Ministeriumssprecher. Der zulässige Grenzwert liegt bei vier Becquerel pro Quadratzentimeter. Der Sprecher räumte ein, daß die Firma das Ministerium bereits vor einer Woche informierte.

http://www.castor.de/presse/ejz/1999/juli/09b.html <http://www.castor.de/presse/ejz/1999/juli/09b.html> 

 

/******************************/

 

The message: Police escorting in several meters distance the transport containers (CASTOR) of burnt nuclear fuel to protect the haulage from disruption by nuclear activists are afraid of contracting cancer from overexposure to radiation.

 

The facts: Behind signboards and at other inaccessible places of the container surface like the holes for screws, up to 74 Becquerel per cm^2 were detected when 4 (no joke!) Becquerel per cm^2 were allowed. 

 

A third example from my own experience: In late October and early November 2003 an unusually strong active region produced several very intense solar particle events in terms of total proton fluxes. Yet the energy spectra were so soft that neither at cruising altitudes and even less on ground any noteworthy increase of radiation exposure occurred. To the contrary, the high proton intensity produced a subsequent significant Forbush decrease of the dose rate lasting for several weeks so that the net result of this event was actually a reduction of the annual exposure. Yet, during the event and the days after our telephone lines were blocked by concerned airlines and their personnel which sought guidance how to react properly. Since at that time the Forbush decrease was already underway, we advised to continue business as usual. ALITALIA sought their advice somewhere else and burnt many(!) millions of dollars on an increased fuel bill by reducing flight altitudes. 

 

In summary, to answer your challenge "Do you know of anyone who has a fear of chronic low level ionizing radiation exposure?"

 

Police are, 

pilots are, 

patients are, 

the media are,

and hence essentially the vast majority of the populace are - at least in Europe! 

 

A final note on the implications of improper or loose or mischievous use of language:

 

The German verb "verstrahlen" or its perfect participle "verstrahlt" is basically a linguistic monster. It its one of the mindless neologisms which nevertheless has deliberately been designed to connote (in German) the meaning that disaster looms wherever you encounter (ionising) radiation. Patients, police, containers become "verstrahlt" and hence are doomed. If even an otherwise respectable magazine like DER SPEGEL employs this verbiage you can imagine how generally and deeply routed this notion is. And I repeat myself. It is the layman's version of the LNT postulate that feeds this radiophobia. The same improper (yet not that mindless) use of language I perceive if people mostly talk of radiation "burden" instead of "exposure" or of the LNT "model/hypothesis" instead of "postulate".

 

 

Sorry that once more a short and simple remark of yours provoked such a lengthy reply. Yet, I hope it helps.

 

Kind regards, Rainer


________________________________

Von: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com]
Gesendet: Mo 12.09.2005 18:51
An: Facius, Rainer; michael.g.stabin at Vanderbilt.Edu; radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Chernobyl's Reduced Impact



Rainer,
Do you know of anyone who has a fear of chronic low
level ionizing radiation exposure?  

<...>