RE: ARTICLE: Fallout likely caused 15,000 deaths

Title: Re: ARTICLE: Fallout likely caused 15,000 deaths

I remain of the opinion that the best place to resolve it is in the legal system--either way, they'll get what they deserve. Either the public airing of a lawsuit and the science vs.. emotion will result in public education and dismissal of the junk science, or the emotion will be picked up by a jury who foresee their own unjustified winning of the lawsuit lottery. In the latter case, the end result will be less nuclear power, and they can freeze in the dark while they choke on the fossil plant pollution and write larger and larger checks by candle light during the rolling blackouts. I recall that 65 percent of Californians favored nuclear power just last summer.

Jack Earley
Radiological Engineer

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul lavely [mailto:lavelyp@UCLINK4.BERKELEY.EDU]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 12:35 PM
To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Fallout likely caused 15,000 deaths

. . . And what would trigger post-traumatic stress in someone who lived in Harrisburg when TMI happened? A radio program? A newspaper?

I just do not think one can compare having lived in Harrisburg, PA, or even in the Chernobyl fallout, AND HAVING SUFFERED NO PHYSICAL HEALTH EFFECT AT ALL, with shell-shock, or battle stress, or being a crime victim.

I disagree and apparently so does the American Psychiatric Association. They define Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as "a natural emotional reaction to a deeply shocking and disturbing experience. It is a normal reaction to an abnormal situation." [was TMI a normal or an abnormal situation?]

The above definition is found in DSM-IV, the fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

There is growing recognition that PTSD can result from many types of shocking experience including an accumulation of small, individually non-life-threatening events . . . .

DSM-IV diagnostic criteria are:

A. The person experiences a traumatic event in which both of the following were present:

1. the person experienced or witnessed or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others;

2. the person's response involved intense fear, helplessness, or horror.

PTSD resulting from accident, disaster, war, terrorism, torture, kidnap, etc has been extensively studied and literature is available elsewhere.

That is, PTSD is the individual's response. Given the same emotional challenge one person will not experience PTSD and another will. Therefore, the test is not suffering physical health effect. The test for PTSD is the response of the individual to an event.

We are all aware of that some people will become physically ill because others do. The sick building or "chemical odor" mass reaction problems are legend. Do we judge that those who become physically ill for no discernable or rational cause are not "actually" sick? I have seen many responses by fire, police, and EMS personnel to these very "psychosomatic" caused illnesses.

Look at the mission statement of the American Psychosomatic Society - . . . to promote and advance the scientific understanding of the interrelationships among biological, psychological, social and behavioral factors in human health and disease, and the integration of the fields of science that separately examine each, and to foster the application of this understanding in education and improved health care. http://www.psychosomatic.org/

I worry when HPs practice psychiatry.

Paul Lavely

lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu

--