[ RadSafe ] Communicating with the public and the press

[Riely, Brian P.]

If something has no upside and a possibility of a downside, one can
logically ask, "why take the chance." 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:05 PM
To: Brennan, Mike (DOH); radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Communicating with the public and the press

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
_______________________________________________
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/