[ RadSafe ] Communicating with the public and the press

[Brennan, Mike (DOH)]

Dr. Long,

I strongly believe that nuclear power ought to be advanced on its
demonstrable strengths, and not on arguments that do not pertain.  EVEN
IF hormesis were a demonstrated and accepted phenomenon, it would not
pertain to nuclear power plants and the public, as the public does not
receive dose from a power plant that can be discerned from the normal
variation in background.

Please note that I do not dismiss the possibility of hormesis, only
state that it is not germane to nuclear power.  I, personally, would
love to see the supporters of hormesis do some rigorous double-blind
experiments that support or refute their basic position.  I can think of
several involving plants and seeds that could be done inexpensively, and
would provide some data that could actually be used.  If you would like
to organize such a study, I would be happy to offer suggestions. 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 4:59 PM
To: Otto G. Raabe; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Communicating with the public and the press

"Underexposed - What if Radiation Were Actually GOOD for You?" by
Hiserodt (book on my waiting room table, given to a dozen persons
including Harvard anti-nuc speaker) neutralizes poison - even better
than the dilution by Chance and Levels instead of Risk and Dose. 

Positive assertion that hormesis has benefit necessary for health (like
sunshine UV makes vitamin D)  is more effective persuasion than absence
of harm, for a nuclear plant in your neighborhood (even though my
measurements showed Palo Verde grounds had less radiation than my
Phoenix hotel).

We should paint the antinucs as flat-earth obstructionists who would
deprive others of health, cancer prevention, ( in addition to depriving
the public of energy and funding terrorist oil producers). 

Howard Long 

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe at ucdavis.edu> 

> August 18, 2008
> 
> When speaking with the public, Congress, or the press, there are two 
> four-letter words that we should carefully avoid: "RISK" and "DOSE".
> 
> To the public these words mean and imply very different negative ideas

> than what we intend. We can substitute "CHANCE" and "LEVELS" to 
> replace them.
> 
> This is the "risk communication" message we need to deliver: 
> 
> "Low levels of ionizing radiation are not hazardous, not dangerous, 
> and not a threat! "
> 
> Otto
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
> Center for Health & the Environment
> University of California
> One Shields Avenue
> Davis, CA 95616
> E-Mail: ograabe at ucdavis.edu
> Phone: (530) 752-7754 FAX: (530) 758-6140
> ***********************************************
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and 
> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: 
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/