[ RadSafe ] SOME IDEAS ON COMMUNICATING RISK TO THEGENERAL PUBLIC

[Brennan, Mike (DOH)]

One of the best lines I've heard for conveying the need to get
priorities straight is, "This is like worrying about asbestos in the
brakes, but not worrying about if the brakes work." 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Doug Huffman
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 2:13 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] SOME IDEAS ON COMMUNICATING RISK TO THEGENERAL
PUBLIC

A la Don Rumsfeld; there are known knowns, and known unknowns, but there

are also unknown unknows.

Low probabilities are not well apprehended.

On 12/6/2010 14:43, Dan W McCarn wrote:
> Assessment of the perception of risk is a complicated study. As a
geologist,
> I became aware of a body of psychological literature on subjective
> probability because I was making geological decisions based on bounded
> intelligence.  The mind's ability to process low-probability events
is, at
> best, tenuous.
>
> Take a look at the following:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_perception
>
> Dan ii
>
> --
> Dan W McCarn, Geologist
> 108 Sherwood Blvd
> Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
> +1-505-672-2014 (Home - New Mexico)
> +1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
> HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Cary
Renquist
> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 12:26
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
MailingList
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] SOME IDEAS ON COMMUNICATING RISK TO THE GENERAL
PUBLIC
>
>
> Just skimmed it, but appears to have some good ideas for communicating
> relative risk...
>
> ...
> Natural frequencies instead of probabilities
>
> Consider the colorectal cancer example given previously. Only 1 in 24
> doctors tested could give the correct answer. The following,
> mathematically-equivalent, representation of the problem was given to
> doctors:
>
>      Out of every 10,000 people, 30 have colorectal cancer. Of these
30,
> 15 will have a positive haemoccult test. Out of the remaining 9,970
> people without colorectal cancer, 300 will still test positive. How
many
> of those who test positive actually have colorectal cancer?
>
> Without any training whatsoever, 16 out 24 physicians obtained the
> correct answer to this version. That is quite a jump from 1 in 24.
> ....
>
> SOME IDEAS ON COMMUNICATING RISK TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC | Decision
> Science News
>    http://j.mp/g394KH
>
>
>
>
> Cary
>
> ---
> Cary Renquist
> crenquist at isotopeproducts.com or cary.renquist at ezag.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>

_______________________________________________
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu