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

[Ivor Surveyor <isurveyor@vianet.net.au>]

At 00:21 24-12-02 -0500, you 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.
>
>
> Ruth
>
> Ruth Weiner, Ph.
>
> D.
>
> ruthweiner@aol.com yl

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Watson DA and WAlsh ML reported in Health Physics vol 38 page 845-6 of 1980 the results of a questionnaire sent to members of Heath Physic organizations at nuclear power sites in USA and Canada.   There were more than 140 replies.

Table 1 indicates replies to the question: 

"If you had to chose between the loss of a limb(s) or part of a limb ( eg by amputation) and a delivered acute dose of whole body radiation (uniform energy deposition) what is the highest dose you would accept in lieu of the specified injury."


Results are given for "acceptable doses preferred to body injuries." in a range 0.5 to 300 rad.

For a whole body dose of 5 rad.  8.8% responded loss of small finger; 4.0 % loss of thumb and 2.0% loss of hand or an arm.

For 25 rads:  2.8%  responded loss of two limbs.


I wonder how twenty five years latter how a similar questionnaire would be answered.





Ivor Surveyor  [isurveyor@vianet.net.au]