Risk of fear

["Steven J Piet/PIETSJ/CC01/INEEL/US" <PIETSJ@INEL.GOV>]

Even believing the linear non-threshold (LNT) radiation response theory, I

seem to recall that people estimated that the risk from FEAR of Three Mile

Island was far higher than the RAD RISK ever was.  The fear induced risk

includes stress, heart attacks, people driving cars, etc.



This comparison becomes even more unbalanced if we consider the possibility

of a threshold radiation response.  Then, the risk below that threshold is

(by definition) zero.  Then, the fear/rad risk ratio for TMI was infinite.



If (when?) a radiation dirty bomb is used, it is more likely that the

worst-case exposures will be in the mrem or few rem range (below what some

would consider the radiation response threshold) than exposures above

several rem.  In fact, assume that the radiation level before explosion

must be less than say 10^4 rem/hour, otherwise the bomb maker becomes too

sick before he can assemble, deliver, and activate it.  After the

explosion, the rad field must be many orders of magnitude less.  This can

be estimated for a given explosive design.



Thus, I can imagine all sorts of "dirty" bombs for which the radiation risk

is low (if LNT) or even zero (if not LNT).  However, the fear-induced risk

could be very substantial.  Do we not have the responsibility to do what we

can to reduce the possible future fear-induced risk by explaining to people

just how low radiation risk is?



Steve Piet





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

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/