[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Study Raises Projection For 'Dirty Bomb' Toll
Dear John,
Thank you again,
A few days ago our colleague Stewart Faber used the word semantic to express
some differences about considerations that we are talking about.
About 20 years ago I have concluded a personall training on Communication to
generic member of the public to help me to go a very tiny details on nuclear
public information and this was important to help me in the very hard and
real experience to
talk to different kind of public and press during the Radiological Accident
in Goiania. Not only in Brazil, rather in international forum. The last was
in USA, as IAEA Consultant, on the Risk Communication During Radiological
Emergencies Workshop: - The workshop's ultimate goal was to have the
participants develop a guidance document on Risk Communication during a
Radiological Incident.and was conducted by the The Division of Emergency
and Environmental Health Services of the National Center for Environmental
Health (NCEH), held on July 15-17, 2002 at the Embassy Suites Hotel,
Las Vegas, Nevada, when I could give several exemples of these tiny details.
So,
please, apologize when I insist in particulars about nuclear communication,
no doubt in our and Stewart cases the reason of discrepancy was that we have
commented the subject only in a few lines to express our toughts.
About your point on INES and IRES:
>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?
I have strong divergency with IAEA about the INES SCALE and I
have expressed my reasons officially to IAEA.
It's a very large document, as I can't annex due Radsafe rule, to those
interested I can send directly my points about. To you I'll send by separate
e-mail
and will be my turn to ask your thoughts.
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: Sunday, January 18, 2004 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: Study Raises Projection For 'Dirty Bomb' Toll
> 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/