[ RadSafe ] Communicating with the public and the press
sperle at mirion.com
Wed Aug 21 09:54:39 CDT 2013
When confronted with request to develop an N13 Standard defining safe, you hit the key points. The request was rejected for all of these reasons.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 21, 2013, at 7:27 AM, "KARAM, PHILIP" <PHILIP.KARAM at nypd.org> wrote:
> Part of the problem with using the word "safe" is that some people use it qualitatively and others use it quantitatively. Clayton is using it qualitatively - which is what most non-scientists tend to do. As he pointed out, having a beer with friends is safe - even though we know in the back of our minds that we might drive afterwards or the bar might have a natural gas leak or the beer might be adulterated or whatever. But the risk from any of those is low and in the back of our minds (if thought of at all) - we just consider having a beer to be safe.
> The problem is that - as scientists - we can't seem to take such a light view of things. So we have to insist on a quantitative measurement - is one chance in 1000 safe? What about one in a million? At what point (numerical risk estimate) can we call something "safe?" If we are trying to be quantitative about a term that everyone we're communicating with is using qualitatively then we're not likely to be able to reach any sort of consensus on whether or not we can use the word "safe" with regards to anything.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Clayton J Bradt
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:38 PM
> To: sperle at mirion.com
> Cc: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Communicating with the public and the press
> I think "safe" is easy as no quantification is necessary. In the common
> usage: Riding a bike is safe. Driving a car is safe. Crossing the street is
> safe. Spending a day at the beach is safe. Having a few drinks with friends
> is safe. Travelling by commercial airline is safe. And doing all of these
> things regularly is safe.
> Exposure to low levels of radiation compares favorably with these sorts of
> everyday activities and can be accurately described as "safe".
> Clayton Bradt
> Principal Radiophysicist
> NYS Dept. of Health
> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 21:34:41 +0000
> From: "Perle, Sandy" <sperle at mirion.com>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: Communicating with the public and the
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> <A4696FE53D1D8E4F9F9BA2265A58C99804E3BB1D at 406845-EXCH2.mirion.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
> I would also be careful using the term "safe". A few years ago a request
> came into N13 to consider forming a Working Group to define what is safe,
> and this was rejected since it is not something that easily defines
> quantitatively or qualitatively.
> 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
More information about the RadSafe