Re: Study Raises Projection For 'Dirty Bomb' Toll

[John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>]

Dr. Rozenthal,

As always I appreciate your comments.  I think we are

trying to say the same thing, but may be lost in the

translation or interpretation.  



I think if I mention what I think is a risk may

different from yours or others.  To me the loss of a

small amount of radioactive material with a short half

life should not be considered as the level of risk as

a radiographic source.  However, when our government

says that 200 souces are lost a year, the public may,

and probably does not know the implication of this

number.  That is where we are failing to communicate

to the public.



What I would like to see is some scale like the IAEA's

International Radiological Event Scale (IRES) to

quantify the risk to the public.  For example, if the

last material would result in an exposure of less than

100 mrem (1 mSv) to the public in one year should have

the lowest level of risk.  A source that was easily

disperable and had a high risk of uptake would have

the highest risk level.  Then, we could report that

100 lost sources had a risk level of 5 (lowest), 20

had a risk level of 4, etc. 



What are your thoughts?



--- Jose Julio Rozental <joseroze@netvision.net.il>

wrote:

>  Dear John and all

> 

> Yes, I understood what you said, however what I said

> is that you, a

> radiation professional, should mention your idea on

> risk, in this case, in

> the affirmative form, not in the interrogative form.

> A member of the public

> does not knowing the danger of radiation, could do

> it in the interrogative

> form.

> Look the difference:

> 

> a) not all sources pose the same risk (As

> professional should tell to

> another professional, discussing this subject and

> explain reasons)

> 

> b) do all sources pose the same risk?  (this

> question we can expect from a

> member of the public or from a professional asking

> to  member of the public

> waiting its reactions from the question, not from a

> professional asking to

> another professional)

> 

> This very tiny detail is part of the risk perception

> concept that many

> colleagues mention in this list. This is part of the

> risk communication on

> radiation issue "Say what you mean and mean what you

> say"

> 

> Going to the rest of your statement, I surely agree

> with you - And this is

> part of the so called Safety Culture - "The assembly

> of characteristics and

> attitudes in organizations and individuals which

> establishes that, as an

> overriding priority, protection and safety issues

> receive the attention

> warrented by their significance"

> IAEA BBS, Ed 115

> 

> Jose

> joseroze@netvision.net.il

> Israel

> 

> 

> 

> 

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@yahoo.com>

> To: "Jose Julio Rozental"

> <joseroze@netvision.net.il>; "Tom"

> <tom@xrfcorp.com>

> Cc: "Stewart Faber" <radproject@optonline.net>;

> "Stewart Farber"

> <farbersa@optonline.net>; "Hart, Tim P GS (RASO)"

> <harttp@RASO.NAVY.MIL>;

> "Radsafe" <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 1:23 AM

> Subject: Re: Study Raises Projection For 'Dirty

> Bomb' Toll

> 

> 

> > Dr. Rozental,

> > Thanks for the reply.

> > What I am trying to say is that not source do pose

> the

> > same risk.  I think we should get idea across to

> the

> > public.  I do not think that a traffic accident

> > involving Tc-99m, with a half life of 6 hours

> should

> > pose the same concern (read fear) to the public as

> a

> > radiographic source like Ir-192.  When the

> government

> > says that 200 sources a year are not accounted

> for,

> > does that give the public confidence in our

> regulatory

> > agencies?

> >

> > I am certainly not trying to say material control

> is

> > not important.  And yes, accidents involved strong

> > radiation sources should be taken seriously.  What

> I

> > am saying is that we should scale our level of

> actions

> > to the risk to the public.  I do not think a

> > laboratory dealing with kBq sources should be

> treated

> > with the same risk as a irradiator facility.

> >

>. . .





=====

+++++++++++++++++++

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Thomas Jefferson



-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com



__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus

************************************************************************

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/