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

[John Jacobus]

Rainer,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  I also appreciate
your personal observations.  No, the U.S.
sensationalize radiation risk as they do in Europe. I
will say that your quote from DER SPIEGEL is extreme
for the U.S. I do think that when you are working with
educated, professional people, it is easier to explain
radiation risks.

I frequently respond to members of the public who have
received a medical x-ray, CT scan, etc., and are
concerned about their risks for cancer, brain disease,
etc.  I sometimes mention that we are all exposured to
background radiation.  Some are smart enough to say,
"Yes, but this was radiation that was delivered all at
once!"  

What I find interesting is that while there are so
many well known radon spa's in Europe, there is such
concern from trivial radiation exposures.

--- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:

> 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 
=== message truncated ===


+++++++++++++++++++
"Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com