Re: loosing, Tooth Fairy Project

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

See comments below.

BLHamrick@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 08/02/2000 8:13:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> tedrock@cpcug.org writes:
>
> << After we are willing to state, without qualification,  the
>  scientific truth, that low-dose radiation is harmless and can be
>  beneficial--until then, we have no moral right to complain about the
>  public's "irrational fear" or stupidity.>>
>
> I totally disagree with this statement.

Two comments: First - Ted's statement uses the wrong word.  I do not know and
have never said that low-dose radiation is "harmless."  I do say that it is
"safe."  There is a big distinction between those two words.  Nothing is harmless
in the right quantities.  Low doses may be, although I don't know.  I understand
Ted's concern and that he believes low doses are not only "harmless" but can be
beneficial.  There are data demonstrating the latter, but never can be data
demonstrating the former.  However, safety is a term that the public understands.
Most people know that absolute safety is impossible.  Most people understand what
is meant by the statement: low doses are safe.  They may not agree with it, but
they can understand it.  However, first they must be told that low doses are
safe.

Second - I perceive that it really is "our fault" primarily because, as the
experts, we should be assisting the public in understanding that low doses are
safe.  We have never done that and to that extent at least, I agree with Ted.  We
should be blaming ourselves first, if there is any blame to be assigned.  After
we get our own ducks in a row, we can blame others for not getting the message.
Communication is a dual responsibility.  The communicator must be clear in their
message:  Low doses are safe.  The communicatee then has the responsibility to
understand completely that message.  After understanding, the communicatee may
choose to disagree, but, in my experience, the public has not ever got the
message from us that low doses are safe.  So they are operating from lack of
information from us and so should not be blamed

> The fact that the public can't make
> rational judgments about alleged risks associated with low dose radiation
> that effectively have no experimental data to support their existence is not
> my fault, and I feel I do have the moral right to complain about their
> irrational fear and stupidity.  We could though choose to blame the
> democratic philosophy that allows that all people are created
> equal...implying, of course, that each and every one is entitled to get full
> weight given their opinion on any matter whatsoever, no matter how uneducated
> about the issue they might be.

I'm fairly sure that the people who coined the phrase "all people are created
equal" really meant that equality referred to informed opinion and not to
uninformed opinion.  That's why they set up a public school system.  However,
don't get me started on the US educational system.

> <<  Until that day, the lawsuits will
>  continue, people will die because they are afraid to get mammograms or other
>  life-saving nuclear medicine procedures, new nuclear plants will not be
>  built, people will violently protest shipping tiny quantities of
>  radioactivity, etc.  I don't think we can blame them.  >>
>
> I do.

Considering the comments above, do you still?  Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net


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