RE: Request for suggestion-"The cig-rem is reborn"

["Doug Boling" <doug.boling@hogfan.com>]

Ultimately, this is a risk assessment issue and the general public does not
"risk assess" as a scientist does.  It is often difficult for scientists to
speak to those "outside the science" in terms they can relate to.  To
accomplish the translation effectively, one must find some common point of
reference. At least in my mind, this is the real crux of the issue as posed
in the original communication of this thread.

Many years ago, I remember reading in the HPS Newsletter an article or
letter referencing a new dose equivalent unit, called the cig-rem.  This
unit of radiation exposure produced the same cancer risk as smoking one
"cig"arette.  Derivations would be pack-rem (a pack), cart-rem (a carton),
truck-rem (a pickup truck bed), trailer-rem (tractor trailor), etc. (you get
the drift)<wink>.  Dose rates would be cig-rem/hour, per day, per week, etc.
At the time, I was learning radiation protection "on the job", reading every
ICRP document I could find and this was one of the most helpful analogies to
me, so influencing me that it left into my mind today, some 20 years later.
Granted much of the article was presented in fun, but given the TMI hysteria
of the time, it was something many of my non-technical friends could relate
to.

A search at www.google.com using "cig rem cancer" produced a link to an
article from 1972 referencing a similar unit, the "cig" to be used in
performing risk assessment.
(click on http://www.sunflower.com/~dewatson/!lrl3.html)

Given the rise of the various tobacco and anti-tobacco factions, it would
seem that adaptation and wide-spread usage of such a term by the scientific
community could go a long way towards communicating to the general public
how to come to grips with the various technologies and risk/benefit analysis
needed.  Even the politicians might be able to relate, but I digress.

While I have been out of the radiation protection industry for 5 or so
years, I want to thank Sandy Perle and the subscribers for this forum that
allows me to stay up to date on many of these issues that are still of
interest to me.

Happy holidays.





-----Original Message-----
From: Sandy Perle [mailto:sandyfl@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 10:23 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: Request for suggestion


> I therefore ask, what is the right way?

The only answer that is possible, is, to use any avenue at your
disposal. That includes using your logical conclusion, as well as any
other comparison possible. I'd try to open the skeptic's eyes to the
fact that I would rather live at the plant's boundary, than to drive
50 miles next to a 18 wheeler carrying chemicals. The risk there is
obvious, but another risk is one of those huge tires blowing, or
simply coming off, crushing the car and all of my inhabitants. I'd
mention that the airlines, one of the safest forms of travels, has
its own inherent risks, and when there is a single crash, there are
hundreds potentially killed.

Id mention that when there is a known and statistically valid number
of deaths from everyday life actions, and there, the individuals
accept the risk, i.e., the number of deaths from automobile
accidents. the number of deaths from smoking, the number of deaths
from hikers in areas where they are told to stay away from. Of course
in this situation, the individual accepts the risks. The contrary
argument would then be, I as a member of the general public, refuse
to accept the risk, of any degree, from nuclear. Those will be
difficult to convince. Perhaps a suggestion that they live ion the
mountains, without electricity, may be their answer. In the end,
their stated policy may bring the same result to the rest of us, when
there just isn't;t any power when the light switch is thrown.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Perle					Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100
Director, Technical				Extension 2306
ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Service		Fax:(714) 668-3149
ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc.			E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue  		E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com
Costa Mesa, CA 92626

Personal Website: http://sandyfl.nukeworker.net
ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com

************************************************************************
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