Facts about TN Illness

[Michael Stabin <stabin@npd.ufpe.br>]

Edward A. Slavin, Jr. wrote:

> They display
> instant hostility to all news media coverage and public scrutiny of
nuclear
> and environmental issues.  This attitude does not contribute to radiation
> protection.  It does not create understanding.    It does not fulfill your
> profession's noble goal of saving human lives from horrible painful cancer
> deaths.
> Isn't the idea of radiation protection was to protect worker safety,
rather
> than industry reputations and corporate liability?  I guess that I am
being
> naive.

I don't think this is really naive at all, it's a fair question.  It
deserves a fair answer (I imagine you'll get a number of hostile responses,
so I'll try and offer something else).  Absolutely, the #1 goal of this
profession is the protection of human beings and the environment against the
harmful effects of radiation, while permitting its beneficial applications.
What you are seeing is a reaction that is common in our profession these
days.  The reaction is against what we perceive to be a strongly distorted
view of the hazards of radiation by the general public, which is often
intentionally fueled by certain organized groups with political agendas, and
sometimes intentionally or unintentionally fueled by poor reporting in the
news media.

We are "against" people being harmed by radiation, it's our job.  But with
some relatively extensive education on the subject, we think we have a
pretty fair understanding of the risks and benefits of radiation, and this
is wholly out of line with what we see in society today.  Most people have a
pretty good view, for example, of the hazards of automobiles and
electricity.  They can kill, the hazards can be managed with care.  The
media report auto fatalities, but no one is out to eliminate the use of
automobiles, so one might say that our perceptions of the risks are in
reasonable balance.  But people seem unnecessarily frightened of exposures
to low levels of radiation which are of the same order as what they receive
from natural background, and far less than they might receive in medical
exposures. This thus threatens viable technologies that might really be
saving lives - like needed power plants in areas where brownouts in the peak
of summer and winter actually cause deaths, like food irradiation which can
save thousands of lives by preventing food poisoning and permit the delivery
of more edible foods to remote areas of third world and developing countries
which now often receive only spoiled goods.

If HPs were only after money, they might agree disingenuously with some of
the anti's that every minute bit of radiation should be monitored, to create
more jobs.  But instead they often react to out of place hysteria by trying
to bring some perspective to people's perceptions.  I think a bit of an "us
vs. them" mentality has been created, that's a fair claim.  But, OTOH, if
Hollywood actors are being touted and brought before Congress as experts in
radiation science, and are making wild claims that are scaring millions of
people and unnecessarily hindering the progress of safe technologies,
perhaps some reactionism is in order.

I worked in Oak Ridge for some 15 years, but not in the plants in question.
Nonetheless, when we would visit nearby Knoxville, we Oak Ridgers often got
spooked reactions from people in the general public (well, OK, some of that
was deserved, cuz lots of us look like geeks and ARE geeks), thinking we
should glow in the dark, represent some direct hazard to them, etc., when
Oak Ridge was much more of a clean, safe and livable city than Knoxville by
a long shot.  Our question always was "If it is so unsafe over there, why do
all of these people, who, at least as evidenced by their advanced degrees,
are pretty smart, live right there and raise their families?" I won't
comment on the case in question, there are always many issues to settle
about worker exposures, but in general we believe that if worker exposures
were kept within regulatory limits, that a considerable margin of safety has
been built in (a la LNT) and that employers should not be incorrectly
punished for this later.  I have seen HPs testifying for the plaintiffs in
many cases where it was clear that the worker was overexposed and
compensation was due.  But the more common case that is seen is a worker who
got an exposure way within regulatory limits, quite similar to other natural
exposures (to radiation, not to mention other hazardous chemicals like
McDonald's hamburgers), and is suing because he/she got cancer, when that
cancer may have come from any of a number of sources.

OK, apologies to you and the list for the long post, but I felt like
spouting off a bit.  Remember, it's only bandwidth.


Michael Stabin, PhD, CHP
Departamento de Energia Nuclear/UFPE
Av. Prof. Luiz Freire, 1000 - Cidade Universitaria
CEP 50740 - 540
Recife - PE
Brazil
Phone 55-81-271-8251 or 8252 or 8253
Fax  55-81-271-8250
E-mail stabin@npd.ufpe.br

"Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of"
- Steven Wright


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