[ RadSafe ] Communicating with the public and the press

[HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net]

Mike and HPs generally,
Fear of low dose radiation, like fear of tomato poisoning 
(once a problem for that member of the deadly nightshade family), 
may be best overcome by convincing of benefit - not just absence of harm.

Citizens Against a Radioactive Environment, CARE, has a 4 page monthly newsletter, 
regular demonstrations at the gates of LLNL, lobbyists in Washington and 
an entrenched bureaucracy proclaiming its salvation of the world 
(small scale GW scam). It has emasculated LLNL with fearmongering.

I am convinced that more is needed than the ample demonstrations of absence of harm. 
Mike is right that there is no more radiation around nuclear plants, but hormesis DOES pertain.
The nuclear power industry's magnificent safety record (and experiments like Mike suggests) 
 have not been enough. Ask Myron Pollycove and Jerry Cuttler who have an article, 
now in peer review, on Nuclear Plants and Health (not the exact title). 

Just as objections to tomatoes were defeated by defaming any who would 
deny the public the nutritional value and delicious taste of tomatoes 
(which could also make you sick with an overdose) , so 
we may need to make villians of any who would deny the public the clear benefit 
of low dose radiation, hormesis, in order to calm their fears - nuclear reactor NIMBY. 

Haven't you seen the ads for vitamins, exercise programs, etc. claiming cancer prevention, 
fetal health, greater longevity, etc? We have better evidence of these with low dose radiation.
So, I have thoriated welding rods on my chair seat (under a pillow) and taped on a belt 
(too uncomfortable to wear) hanging over the back of it, in my jealousy of Denver residents.

Viva hormesis (ionizing radiation, sunshine, or tomatoes)

Howard Long 

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV> 

> 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" 
> 
> > 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