AW: [ RadSafe ] Chernobyl's Reduced Impact

[John Jacobus]

Maury,
Thanks for comments and sorry for the delay in
responding.  I know exactly what you are talking
about.  I routinely edit questions from people who
have or have children who had received diagnostic
test.  I and those who respond do try and educate the
questioners.  We often spend quite a bit of time. 
Such people are not ignorant and present good
arguements about risks.  But we try and educate and
reduce their concerns.  I am not sure we will
completely reduce their fears, but we try.

What I am coming to realize that this list presnts an
opportunity for people to complain about these issues.
 However, few do anything but complain.  

--- Maury Siskel <maurysis at ev1.net> wrote:

> Please forgive the anecdotal intrusion, but ... I
> know and have known 
> uncounted numbers who fear radiation, BUT who have
> little clue what is 
> meant by ionizing radiation (not to say low level or
> chronic), by LNT, 
> by PET, by CT, by MRI, and even in a serious sense
> X-Ray. But radiation? 
> sure everybody knows about that -- the invisible
> rays that killed masses 
> of people from the atom bombs in Japan and that
> might kill us by a 
> terrorist dirty bomb .... John, one can bandy
> technically correct 
> distinctions, but there are vast numbers of folks
> who have a variety of 
> obvious vested interests in exacerbating fears of
> anything  suggesting 
> radiation -- including even some sincere believers. 
> This extends to 
> some who expressly expend efforts to distort,
> suppress, and even hide 
> scientific data suggesting human benefits from some
> exposure to 
> radiation.  Supposedly, one goal of science and govt
> is to promote 
> knowledge.
> 
> The promotion seems to me to have been increasingly
> poor in recent 
> decades.  Often all one can do is feel dismay while
> continuing to  work 
> in the correct direction.
> Cheers,
> Maury&Dog   maurysis at ev1.net
> =====================
> 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, 
=== 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