[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Radon Health Risks
If I
understand what you're saying, then what we're dealing with is just the
opposite--those who perceive the risk to be greater are imposing their standards
on those who don't. Although it may not be affecting their income, it could be
detrimental to their health by excessively restricting their dose. And I think
we're safe from anyone being forced to work in this industry. But therein lies
the quandary: how do we communicate real risk levels without causing a detriment
to our own incomes?
Jack Earley
Radiological Engineer
In a message dated 1/21/02 9:32:58 AM Mountain Standard Time,
Jack_Earley@RL.GOV writes:
. They got over it by the time we covered biological
effects
and the relative (statistical, not real) risks, after they realized
that
no activity (including staying home and watching TV) is risk-free.
Here is an insight I recently
got about risk, so I will share it. Any individual can make a decision
about acceptable PERCEIVED risk that affects only himself or herself.
However, when a risk decision affects a group, especially a large group,
one has to look at realistically estimated risks in order to be fair.
For example, just because a few people PERCEIVE the risk from
ionizing radiation to exceed the risk associated with joblessness, doesn't
mean that this perception should be forced on an entire society. A fair
society should look at risk estimated from frequency data.
Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com