[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/