Re: Suggestions...MSC story...[correction]

[Tom Mohaupt <tom.mohaupt@wright.edu>]

I have to disagree with Mr. Carlson's assertion that driving cars, using
natural gas, and climbing on top of a roof are more acceptable risks
because they are perceived as voluntary. The "voluntary" arguement is used
by some people trying to justify a predetermined conclusion. No one
volunteers to have their car hit by an inattentive driver going 20 miles
over the speed limit, have a gas leak turn their home into a raging
inferno, or slip off the roof repairing the TV antenna. You can stroll
through any hospital and find ample stories of people injuried or dying
from "voluntary" acts that did not happen the way they intended.

The acceptance of a risk is more related to the mental imagery that people
have for each event. That imagery is based on experience and what they've
heard. Take your driving example: A person driving on road shrouded with
fog will normally drive slower because they recognize the potential hazard.
Another driver may not take those precautions because he/she has driven
under similar conditions and feels confident that driving 10 miles above
the speed limit is perfectly safe. I lived near Virginia Beach when the
Jaws movie came out. I knew a lot of people who would not go near the beach
for fear of a shark attack, even though they had often visited the beach
before. The movie gave them sufficient negative imagery to counteract
reason.

With radiation we have a dichotomy of experience and what people have
heard. Many people who have worked with radiation, understand how it
behaves. Most of us firmly believe that radiation can be used safely and
that it provides a invaluble tool for medicine, research, and energy
production. Personally, I've driven a taxi cab, worked as a roofer, and had
gas heat. Each one of these experiences has brought scrimmages with
disaster. I sincerely believe that working with radiation is the safest job
I've ever had. The reason many people of the general public fear radiation
is that they have only seen negative press, frightening reports from groups
with a set agenda (using circular logic), horrific movies.  These images
are powerful and are often used in place of experience.

Tom

GlennACarlson@aol.com wrote:
> 
> [My previous posting can be read to attribute my statements to Jaro
> (frantaj@aecl.ca).  I offer the following correction with my apologies to
> Jaro.  GAC]
> 
>  Driving automobiles, use of natural gas, and climbing on roofs have a much
>  higher level of voluntary assumption of risk and individual control of risk
>  than nuclear technology.
> 
>  To steal Mr. Lipton's line, the public is more willing to accept these risks
>  over the risks from nuclear technology, in part, because they trust the
>  judgment of nuclear proponents less than their own.  Which probably says
> more
>  about the reputation of nuclear proponents than the judgment of the public.
> 
>  Glenn A. Carlson, P.E.
>  St. Peters, MO
>  GlennACarlson@aol.com
> 
>   In a message dated 1/17/2000 10:53:47 AM Central Standard Time,
>  frantaj@aecl.ca writes:
> 
> << Subj:     RE: Suggestions? and MSC story to be on CBS- Misuse of language
> 
>   Compare this to any one of a number of far more hazardous human activities
>  <snip>  automobile accidents, <snip>  natural gas explosions [, <snip>]
>  falling from the roofs of their houses <snip>
> 
>   Jaro
>   frantaj@aecl.ca
> 
>    >>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

-- 
Thomas Mohaupt, M.S., CHP
University Radiation Safety Officer

104 Health Sciences Bldg
Wright State University
Dayton, Ohio 45424
tom.mohaupt@wright.edu
(937) 775-2169
(937) 775-3761 (fax)
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html