[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



Barbara's final question and discussion gets to the heart of one of the main issues in radiation safety - risk perception.  My personal belief is that we need to reexamine our role in generating this disconnect between our estimate of risk and the concern the public has and foster the changes that are required to better align concern and risk.
 
Eric Daxon, Ph.D., C.H.P.
 
The views expressed are mine and mine alone.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Rockwell [mailto:tedrock@CPCUG.ORG]
Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 9:39 AM
To: BLHamrick@AOL.COM; jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Cc: jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET
Subject: RE: Not using LNT to calculate risk does not mean there is no risk.

Barbara:
 
I think you're on a wrong, or at least non-productive, track.  The fact is, that LDR does NOT produce an additional risk.  Most evidence indicates that it reduces the risk of cancer and of shorter longevity.  That's what the data say.  I don't have any data on reindeer tramplings, but I do have data on LDR.  Even NCRP-136, the latest proclamation on LNT, states on page 6, and in the news release on it issuance, that most populations exposed to LDR do not show increased cancer and most show decreased cancer.  That's right in the report. 
 
The fact that they then recommend using LNT anyway is another issue.  But they do not claim that the data show an increased risk from LDR.  We must keep clear on that point.
 
Ted Rockwell
 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu [mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of BLHamrick@AOL.COM
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 11:31 PM
To: jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Cc: jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET
Subject: Re: Not using LNT to calculate risk does not mean there is no risk.

In a message dated 12/23/2002 8:10:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu writes:

My draft letter
points out that neither the HPS nor the ICRP have stated that there
is no risk from low doses. 


I agree, but we must keep in mind there is risk from every conceivable human activity.  What scientist in their right mind would ever say there is "no risk" from something?  I don't think that's legitimate under any circumstances.  There is a "risk" that a reindeer will trample me to death on Christmas Eve.  It may be vanishingly small, but there IS a risk.

I recently had an elected official say to me, "If you would just "prove" to the community this is absolutely safe, then there wouldn't be a problem," or something to that effect.  How does one respond?  You CAN'T "prove" that anything is absolutely safe.  You can drown in milk, accidentally slit your wrist with a nail file, suffocate on the smoke from the chestnuts roasting by your open fire by forgetting to open the chimney flue.  NOTHING is "absolutely safe."  It is silly to think in those terms.  Yet, where "exotic" harms are involved, such as the public perceives radioactive materials to be, they expect some impermeable warranty on the safety.

How do we educate people on the realities of risk?  That's the real question in my opinion.

Barbara