Re: Article on radiation fear and disaster response.

[William V Lipton <liptonw@dteenergy.com>]

I appreciate your posting and agree that scare tactics, "... should be

overridden by voices of reason.", although much of what I see on Radsafe is

not a "voice of reason."



I doubt, however, that your goal of uniformity of risks is either achievable

or necessarily desirable.  People often make inconsistent risk choices.  I

knew of a safety supervisor who drove in a demolition derby!  People generally

make a distinction between controllable and imposed risks, e.g., it's my

choice to drive in the demo derby, but risks at work are imposed on me.



Even controllable risks are often not chosen scientifically.  Here it comes,

again, "Perception is reality."  Ultimately, society must control imposed

risks to accepted standards, but allow wide discretion in chosen risks, within

some limits, such as not harming others.  I guess that if the public would

rather have a chemical plant in their community than a nuclear power plant,

even though the "experts" say the latter risks are lower, it's their right.

After all, it's the "best and the brightest" who got us into Viet Nam.



The opinions expressed are strictly mine.

It's not about dose, it's about trust.

Curies forever.



Bill Lipton

liptonw@dteenergy.com



"Stabin, Michael" wrote:



> Jaro's post:

> > I re-posted the article on the Canadian nuclear listserv, and

> > got an interesting - and I think quite valid - reply from a

> > colleague (see below).

> > Interesting reading.  But I'm not sure if the statement "We

> > don't treat other spills and leaks so fearfully" is

> > necessarily true.  Do you remember the media noise

> > surrounding the transformer being moved in northern Ontario

> > in 1985, the one that leaked PCB-laced oil?

>

> and Maury's post of Bjorn's article:

> > The warnings are from a research group that purposely during

> > the past 20 years has consistently sounded the alarm about

> > various hazards. This includes defoliants (Agent Orange) and

> > lymph cancer, sweeteners and cancer, dioxins and cancer, blue

> > cement houses and cancer, alcohol and cancer, breast feeding

> > and cancer, electromagnetic fields and cancer, electrostatic

> > fields and various illnesses and now, of course, the mobile

> > telephone's radio waves and cancer.  A review of warnings in

> > the media show that the same research group has issued

> > warnings more than 100 times about various matters.

>

> ...are thought provoking. Radiation is not unique in being associated

> with emotional and sometimes not scientifically based treatment in the

> public arena. Certainly some much higher risk exposures are treated as

> "no big deal", such as routinely observed spills of hazardous chemicals

> which cause evacuations of whole communities but no activist groups and

> actors calling for industries to be shut down. Others, however, ranging

> from those involving serious exposures and real harm, to low exposures

> and tenuous or nonexistent causative mechanisms, generate emotional

> reactions, and cue the involvement of some of these activists (Tennessee

> has lost the uranium enrichment project due to public opposition - the

> jobs go to New Mexico. Now we have Erin Brockovich and Johnnie Cochran

> Jr. investigating groundwater contamination from a landfill in Dickson

> County, TN and possible effects on drinking water and health in the

> community). In some cases, the activists were right, and without their

> voices, needed action (site cleanup and victim compensation) would not

> have been taken. In others, the activists are at best wrong and at worst

> practicing a mild form of terrorism for financial and political gain,

> and their voices should be overridden by voices of reason. As noted "In

> most cases, these warnings have later proven to lack any explicit

> significance for health." I agree that "it is not ethically or morally

> correct of ... researchers to release and issue warnings" in many of

> these cases. Scaring people away from cell phone use, scaring parents

> away from letting their children have needed CTs, scaring people away

> from noninvasive nuclear medicine tests and towards more risky

> procedures, and just leaving people in a constant state of fear about

> cancer is unethical when no scientific basis exists for the claims.

>

> Some sort of uniformity of treatment of these issues is of course

> desirable, but an elusive goal. It would be an interesting research

> project to look at the history of many of these cases and find some

> grounds for a consistent policy on how public discourse should be

> managed.

>

> Mike

>

> Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP

> Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences

> Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences

> Vanderbilt University

> 1161 21st Avenue South

> Nashville, TN 37232-2675

> Phone (615) 343-0068

> Fax   (615) 322-3764

> Pager (615) 835-5153

> e-mail     michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu

> internet   www.doseinfo-radar.com

>

> ************************************************************************

> 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/