Re: Not using LNT to calculate risk does not mean there is no risk.

["Richard L. Hess" <lists@richardhess.com>]

Ruth,


I don't think the general public thinks that way. 


Perhaps it's a lack of control. When I'm driving, I have the perception

of being in control...although obviously not of the oncoming drunk in my

lane.


I still think that a lot of the issue of concern gets back to who's in

charge, what are the safeguards. 


TMI and Chornobyl both had human factors involved. There certainly was a

degree of "don't tell me any news if it's bad news" or

something like that apparently going on at the near miss LOCA at

Davis-Besse...


There is a lot that can be done to help people understand, I think.

However, the human factor and worst-case-scenario failure modes are

things that cause people to be concerned.


Remember, Wasserman's book (Killing our Own) is still out there on the

Net (he thought it important enough that it stay in print that he gave

the book for free downloading) telling people that the official TMI

figures are way off and there is proof in New England of increased health

risks (I don't recall the exact citation) from TMI as New England was

downwind.


See my earlier post about the comparative study--oh, and by the way, the

comparison summary of the study should be in one or two page tables

<smile>. Digestible by the normal human being.


Cheers,


Richard


At 12:21 AM 12/24/2002 -0500, RuthWeiner@AOL.COM wrote:

> In
>
> a message dated 12/23/02 10:02:40 PM Mountain Standard Time,
>
> BLHamrick@AOL.COM writes:
>
>
> > How do we
> >
> > educate people on the realities of risk?  That's the real question
> >
> > in my opinion.
>
>
>
> If that is the real question, then comparison is a good way to educate
>
> people.   I'm just not convincd that the people who talk about
>
> "absolutely safe" don't really know that nothing is
>
> "absolutely safe" -- that they are asking an
>
> impossibility.