Re: unreported pre-Tokaimura industrial fatality

[Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@delphi.com>]

Sandy Perle wrote:
> 
> > But if you work out the figures per
> > passenger JOURNEY rather than per passenger MILE, air transport turns out
> > the second most hazardous after the motorcycle.  Car transport per journey
> > is far safer than air travel on this basis.  The air travel sector does have
> > this ultimate safety image, in contrast to the nuclear industry.  How did
> > they manage this?
> 
> You're playing statistics games. I don't have your data, but even if
> I did, in my opinion, to state that air travel is the second most
> hazardous form of travel, behind motorcycles, is a totally
> misappropriate accusation. What you are doing, looking for some lower
> level denominator to make your point, is exactly the same methodology
> that those who object to nuclear energy. I am speaking of those who
> are solely out to kill an option, and most often, have no real basis,
> so they use statistics. In the end, the statistics are misused.
> 
> Accidents per mile is a sound basis. Travel by journey is not
> appropriate. If I get in my car and use it to go 1/2 block, 100 times
> a day, and another 100,000 people do that .. there are a lot of
> journeys, and yes, probably many accidents as well. If one addresses
> deaths from air travel, be they per mile or by journey, to say that
> the airlines are more dangerous than the automobile, that kills over
> 50,000 in the USA each year alone, is simply not an accurate or
> appropriate statement, and does nothing to advance the ideas of
> nuclear safety. A stretch by any means.
> 
> Your final question ... How did they manage this? By flying safely
> (as best as possible) with minimal deaths. Can they improve,, they
> certainly can, but to say that they are unsafe ... no way.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sandy Perle 

Well said, Sandy! But, consider that we "advertise" radiation, with much less
hazard, as "unsafe" continuously!? (By our actions even more than words.) And
then we wonder why many people fear "any radiation." (Those who aren't afraid
are so despite us :-) Either we haven't 'reached them' yet; they put radiation
"in perspective" with natural sources and medical experience despite our best
efforts; or they naturally smell gov't and self-serving bureaucracies when
they see them :-)

If FAA, APA (Air Passenger's Assoc), "aircraft maintenance reporting," IATA
(Int'l Air Transport Assoc), "Air Safety Experts," etc. etc., acted like e.g.,
EPA/NRC/DOE/NCRP/ICRP/rad users, and "rad safety experts", people wouldn't
think air travel is safe either. After all, we've only had one major
"accident" and it's easy to see that it was a bad design (like, what was the
British early jet airplane that didn't make it? Comet? and the Soviet SST?
etc.  :-) 

Thanks.

Regards, Jim
muckerheide@mediaone.net
========================
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html