Does anyone besides me think that it would be a good idea for the public to be told "the estimated lung cancer risk from radon is 18,600 deaths per year, but could range from 3,000 to 33,000 per year?" Do we think the public is unable to grasp the idea that the numbers are only calculations that involve some significant uncertainties?
- - - - -
IMO, as usual, some segments of the public would be unable to grasp the idea, while others would grasp it only too well -- people trying to get a piece of the "remediation funding" pie would probably tend to use the high figure in their (or their lawyers') arguments.
Similarly, estimates of this type - with very wide uncertainty margins - are liable to be misused, when they are in some way connected with nuclear power (Yucca mountain, SNF transports, NPP effluent releases, etc.)
Jaro