[ RadSafe ] Communicating with the public and the press

[John R Johnson]

Bill

I agree. That is why we have been using terms like "as low as reasonably
achievable", etc

John


On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Bill Prestwich <prestwic at mcmaster.ca>wrote:

> I do not believe there is a scientific definition of safe, nor should there
> be, which is the heart of the problem. To the public safe is understood in
> a
> binary context-either something is safe or its dangerous. It is this
> concept
> which the anti-nuclear movement uses to make the claim that the LNT
> provides
> scientific proof that there is no safe level of ionizing radiation. Leaving
> aside the controversy surrounding the LNT, even if one accepts it the
> anti-nuclear approach has to be based upon the absurd definition of safe as
> an activity with zero risk. Science can quantify risk, but as you rightly
> point out, is incapable of defining safe which is a subjective decision.
>
> Bill
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of KARAM, PHILIP
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 10:28 AM
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu; sperle at mirion.com
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Communicating with the public and the press
>
> 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.
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> -----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
>
>
>
> Sandy,
>
> 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
>                  press
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
>                  List"           <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
>
> <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.
>
> Tegards,
>
> Sandy
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>