Re: Fear, etc.

["D. Kosloff" <dkosloff@ncweb.com>]

When a psychiatrist deals with serious, debilitating fear of radiation,
there is a good (bad?) chance they will tell the patient that the patient is
right and we are crazy.  This is not speculative, I have an article from
"Psychology Today" that led me to this conclusion.

Don Kosloff mailto:dkosloff@ncweb.com
2910 Main St, Perry OH

----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Rees <brees@lanl.gov>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2000 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: Fear, etc.


> Sandy,

> While dealing with serious, debilitating fear is the job of a
psychiatrist,
> what is so wrong about expending a small effort educating and
demonstrating
> to a skeptical (or worse) person that their concerns and fears are
> unfounded?  The amount of effort is a judgement, and some attempts to
> placate are clearly excessive and a waste of time, explaining background
> radiation or showing some other basic principle to a concerned person IS
> part of the job.  Remember as Lipton reminds: it's not about dose, it's
> about trust.
>
> Having said that, balance and perspective have to be preserved too.  It
> doesn't bother me to spend an hour (of my own time) to take a meter and
> show somebody that the highway the WIPP trucks drive down isn't
radioactive
> (above background), but IMHO it is a waste to sample the asphalt (which is
> not being done to my knowledge).  We have done our jobs, but sometimes a
> little PR is needed too.   Dan's point was at a REASONABLE cost, and I
have
> to agree.
>
> In the purest sense this may be outside of our job description, but
> SOMEBODY's got to do it, and who better than us?  Most of us have seen a
> media person massacre the facts.  When the message gets garbled we end up
> making the corrections, might as well do it the first time and maybe it'll
> get done right.
>
> Brian Rees
> brees@lanl.gov
>
>
>
> At 10:54 AM 2/14/00 -0600, you wrote:
> >Dan wrote the following:
> >
> >>  "Unnecessary" measurements? In the larger public health picture,
taking
> into
> >>  account the fact that real health effects can be triggered by false
fears,
> >>  anything that can be legitimately and honestly done at reasonable cost
to
> >build
> >>  or restore peace of mind is, in my opinion, a valid part of the
> >profession of
> >>  health physics.
> >
> >Sorry Dan, but I have to respectfully disagree with your ultimate
> >conclusion. While fear of any unknown may be a valid psychosomatic
> >disorder, dealing with and trying to mitigate those fears is not our
> >prime responsibility. Our job is to protect the public from "real"
> >exposures to radiation and releases of radioactive materials. Dealing
> >with one's fears is a job for psychiatrists and those who deal with
> >social disorders.
> >
> >As Keith stated previously, if I have to perform actions that I know
> >are only being performed to placate someone, then it is time for me
> >to leave this professional and move on to something that I know will
> >really make a difference. Acting on superstition or misrepresenting
> >the situation and environment, due to political or otherwise, is no
> >different than the anti-nuclear side promoting mis-representations as
> >they often do. If we do, we become their puppets, and in the end, are
> >no different than they are.
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Sandy Perle Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>

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