Re: BERT, DARI, etc.

[Ruth Sponsler <jk5554@YAHOO.COM>]

I disagree.  I think that the concept of background

equivalent is very useful, especially in medical

settings or when dealing with really small amounts

(almost always very much less than yearly background)

in public exposures.  



I don't think that 'BERT' is a 'gimmick.'  I remember

a radiologist explaining to my parents and me (when I

was a child) that the exposure from a series of x-rays

would be equivalent to a few weeks camping in

Colorado. I would have had more fun vacationing in

Colorado than in the physician's office, but oh

well... ;-)



Numbers without commonly understandable units attached

to them are hard to understand.  Relatively few people

in the general public know what 3 mrem is.  However,

lots of people understand '1 chest x-ray' or 'about

3-4 days of natural background radiation.'  We all

understand the difference between a $1.00 bill and a

$5, $10, or $20 or even $100, because we understand

the dollar as a common unit.  But if a unit of

currency called a "whatzit" came out, this would be a

total mystery until the thing was 'translated' into

something in common use.  No one would know if a

'whatzit' was worth 2 cents or $5,000.00 or anything

in between [or even more or less], until it's

translated into dollars (or pesos or euro or

whatever).  Will I go broke if I spend 1 'whatzit?' 

Or, will the clerk laugh in my face when I plunk down

only 3 'whatzits' for a cup of coffee that costs 1,000

'whatzits?' 



To most people, 'millirems,' 'microSieverts' etc. etc.

are 'whatzits.'  



'Background equivalent' is just an effort to translate

'whatzits' into something that is better understood by

everybody.





~Ruth 2  







--- Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET> wrote:

> Perhaps it is somewhat perilous to generalize, but

> apparently the vast

> majority of the public is: [1] technologically

> ignorant, [2] innumerate, and

> [3]radiophobic. The radiophobia is not irrational in

> any way.  Since the

> public is incapable of technically evaluating

> information, the widespread

> fear of radiation is simply a reflection of what the

> public learns from the

> media and from government policies (i.e. if

> radiation wasn't so dangerous,

> why would we need ALARA, cleanup levels to a small

> fraction of bkgd. level,

> etc.)

> Given this situation, does anyone really believe

> that gimmicks such as BERT,

> & DARI, would be effective in giving the public a

> reasonable perspective on

> radiation effects. I wouldn't be optimistic. The

> abandonment of LNT, ALARA,

> and similar nonsense by regulatory agencies would be

> much more effective.

 





__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax

http://taxes.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/