[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Dirty Bomb Predictions (ugh!)



Terrorists rely on fear to attack a population.  



Unfortunately, it appears to me that a lot of people

are approaching psychology in precisely the wrong way.





The USA Today and MSNBC pieces that imply deaths from

radiation levels below variations in natural

background (e.g. 30 mrem/year) create fear of

radiation.  I don't like testing nuclear bombs any

more than anyone else did.  That is not the issue. 

The damage has been done e.g. its 'water under the

bridge' now, as these releases occurred in the 1950s

and early 1960s.  The issue is that the levels subject

to discussion in the news media pieces are smaller

than the differences in background between

Colorado/New Mexico etc. and, say Delaware or

Louisiana/Mississippi.   It's quite an extrapolation

to imply cancer deaths from 30 mrem/year when multiple

occupational studies of up to ~5,000 mrem/year don't

find increased cancer mortality (Boice et al. 1995,

Cardis et al. 1995, Matanoski  1991, Smith and Douglas

1986, Sont et al. 1991) and when cancer rates are

lower in high natural background areas than in low

background areas (Jagger 1998).



Based on my reading of a number of epidemiological

studies of persons exposed to up to 5,000 mrem/year,

there are few hazards at this level.  [In fact

benefits].  Based on reading of epidemiological

studies of radiologists who worked before occupational

standards were set at 5,000 mrem/y (~5 cSv/y), the

dangers from radiation were most prominent before

1920, when radiologists were frequently [wantonly]

overexposed to amounts > 1 Sv/year of radiation. 

Radiologists working after 1955 show no harm at all

from their occupational exposures.  The data for

radiologists between 1920 and 1955 is equivocal -

British radiologists (Berrington et al. 2001) showed

little harm from exposures during this period whereas

there were somewhat increased risks to American

radiologists especially before 1940 (Matanoski et al.

1975).  Exposures between 1920 and 1940 to

radiologists were somewhere probably more than 15,000

mrem/year (~15 cSv/year) up to probably at least 1

Sv/year.     



If we want to fight terrorism, we need to honestly

assess hazards from the overall data available, rather

than to assume the 'worst' set of numbers possible.  

Terrorists rely on fear to accomplish their goals of

creating disarray in a society.  



This is just my personal opinion here, but I think

that the best way to fight terrorism of the possible

'dirty bomb' type is to educate the public about

things like natural background radiation and

occupational exposures (and the results of

occupational exposure).  



The worst way to fight terrorism is to instill fear in

the public of levels of radiation that are less than

natural background or contemporary occupational

exposures.  This just plays into the hands of a

potential terrorist.  



Someone else noted that some people evacuated after

Chernobyl lived in places where the release added up

to less than natural background.  This makes no sense

whatsoever.  The psychological consequences of this

sort of decision are almost certainly serious and must

be taken into account in risk assessments.



Terrorism, at its root, is psychological warfare. 

Psychological warfare accomplishes its goals much more

easily with a population that is thinking irrationally

and fearfully, than an educated population who know

how to make rational decisions.  



Just my humble opinion, but at least with some support

from actual studies rather than extrapolations from

'models.'



~Ruth 2 aka Ruth Sponsler



============================



Berrington A., S.C. Darby, H.A. Weiss, and R. Doll.

2001. 100 years of observation on British

radiologists: mortality from cancer and other causes

1897-1997. Br. J. Radiol. 74(882):507-519. Online at

http://bjr.birjournals.org/cgi/content/full/74/882/507



Boice JD Jr, Mandel JS, Doody MM.  1995.  Breast

cancer among radiologic technologists.   JAMA.  Aug

2;274(5):394-401.



 Cardis E, Gilbert ES, Carpenter L, Howe G, Kato I,

Armstrong BK, Beral V, Cowper G, Douglas A, Fix J, et

al.  1995.  Effects of low doses and low dose rates of

external ionizing radiation: cancer mortality among

nuclear industry workers in three countries.  Radiat

Res.  May;142(2):117-132.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7724726&dopt=Abstract



Jagger, J. 1998. Natural background radiation and

cancer death in Rocky Mountain States and Gulf Coast

States. Health Phys. 75(4):428-430.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9753369&dopt=Abstract



Matanoski G:  1991.  Health effects of low-level

radiation in shipyard workers final report. 471 pp. 

Baltimore, MD, DOE DE-AC02-79 EV10095.  National

Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia.



Matanoski G.M., R. Seltser, P.E. Sartwell, E.L.

Diamond, Elliott EA.  1975.   The current mortality

rates of radiologists and other physician specialists:

deaths from all causes and from cancer.   Am. J.

Epidemiol. 101(3):188-198.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1115058&dopt=Abstract



Smith, P.G., and A.J. Douglas.  1986.    Mortality of

workers at the Sellafield plant of British Nuclear

Fuels.  Br. Med. J. (Clin. Res. Ed.).

293(6551):845-854.  

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3094683&dopt=Abstract



Sont WN, Zielinski JM, Ashmore JP, Jiang H, Krewski D,

Fair ME, Band PR, Letourneau EG.   2001.  First

analysis of cancer incidence and occupational

radiation exposure based on the National Dose Registry

of Canada.   Am J Epidemiol.  153(4):309-318.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11207146&dopt=Abstract



============================

> 3)  Our scenarios don't involve a very large dose

> per year.  We were

> asked by the committee to see when the 1E-4 EPA

> threshold would be

> violated -- this doesn't take much of a dose.

 







> 12)  Re the NIH poster -- 1 Ci/m^2 is a totally

> unrealistic -- even the

> chernobly closed zone was 40 microcuries/m^2 Cs-137.





> I look forward to further comments and discussion on

> the report.

> 

> Cheers,

> Michael Levi

> Director, Strategic Security Project

> Federation of American Scientists

> 1717 K St. NW

> Washington DC 20036

> mlevi@fas.org









__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!

http://mail.yahoo.com/

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

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/