Re: LNT/ALARA and workable regulations (formerly

["Bjorn Cedervall" <bcradsafers@hotmail.com>]

>For every little bit of radiation, we calculate the number of >deaths, and 
>killing is something the Media are quick to report. >People are moved by 
>such reports and view these deaths as real, >perhaps even afflicting 
>themselves or their loved ones. The public >has thus been driven insane 
>over fear of radiation, losing all >contact with reality.

Sure most Radsafers agree on this. We have a tremendous educational problem 
- take the recent discussions we had again about food and irradiation, or 
media stuff in Sweden about the potential (speculative) dangers of cell 
phones. Our media always "debate" this with very confusing terms around the 
word "radiation". We need simple analogies to get some key points through 
like if "you won't be grilled if you eat a grilled chicken" (but some 
chemical carcinogens may be there...).

Obviously, the media are successful in scaring Americans also - this morning 
I spoke with a friend (non-scientist) in the U.S. and she said - "you aren't 
using a cell phone are you? I think that they are dangerous - I would never 
keep one close to me - or only just very briefly...". I approached the 
subject by mentioning magnetic fields from other objects we use and also 
that you can't prove that something is not dangerous. Just have to realize 
that she probably will continue being afraid of cell phones (she is working 
with computers for hours everyday however).

Now - all this is about "radiation" in the media - and people always are fed 
with the same message of radiation dangers - but they never heard about 
ethylene generated by endogeous bacteria in our intestinal system. So, back 
to radiation: It is also tied to nuclear power "so that must also be 
dangerous".

I think that it is crucial for all of us into health physics etc to help 
sort out the aspects and perspectives of these other fields (like food 
irradiation - "irradiated vs. radiating/radioactive" or the magnetic "EMF" 
topic which in itself has a lot of confusion with it) even if they are not 
exactly our job.

My observations over the years indicate that anti-nukes don't want the 
definitions to be clear or the topics explained. They thrive on the 
confusion that makes their work easier with decision makers and the media.

Definitely my personal opinions and thoughts,

Bjorn Cedervall  bcradsafers@hotmail.com
http://www.geocities.com/bjorn_cedervall/

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

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