Re: Bhopal, radiation, and risk standards

[Ted de Castro <tdc@XRAYTED.COM>]

You covered most points except the issue the anti's keep coming back to

- the CHOICE issue.  They feel they can choose to drive or not but

object to a low level radiation exposure they they feel is imposed upon

them; that they cannot choose to avoid.



> A Karam wrote:

> 

> Warning - some of what follows may be stuff I've written before in a

> different context.  Sorry....

> 

> To me it seems that a good standard to apply to risks is to ask how

> they compare to unavoidable daily risks.  In the US, we have about a

> 1% risk of dying in a traffic accident and about a 0.01% risk of dying

> from occupational illness or injury.  Bicycling, sports, and other

> activities also carry risk with them.  Using these as points of

> comparison, "chasing after pCi levels of contamination" makes little

> sense because all risk models show that the risk of cancer is lower.

> Other nations, of course, have different levels of risk from different

> sources.

> 

> Part of the problem with perception of risks stems, I believe, in our

> use of language.  It is relatively easy to scare people by mentioning

> cancer or risks to children.  It is not easy to "un-scare" people by

> saying that these risks are low.  Strictly speaking, getting out of

> bed is a low-risk activity, as is sleeping, eating steak, or walking

> to work.  We can all imagine hazards from each of these activities

> and, in some cases, the risks from these are greater than the risks

> from low levels of radiation.  But we have very few people who chug

> coffee because they're afraid of sleeping or getting out of bed.  This

> is because we know that we have to sleep, because the effects of sleep

> deficit are immediate and obvious, and because we accept sleep as a

> necessary part of our lives.

> 

> There are probably more people who die in their sleep than who die

> from radiation-induced cancer on a lightly-contaminated site.  But we

> refer to such a site as being "low-risk".  What I fear many people

> hear is "risk", and the image in their mind is of cancer.  Why do we

> readily say that sleeping is safe, but we say that exposure to low

> levels of radiation is low-risk?  This inconsistency on our part is

> used to support the anti-radiation and anti-nuclear activists because

> they can triumphantly say that even radiation scientists agree there

> is some risk associated with radiation exposure.  (as a side issue, I

> wonder what risk is associated with a return to the pre-industrial

> world - the average lifespan a century ago was somewherer between 40

> and 45).

> 

> Why can't we, instead, agree (and publically state) to refer to

> exposure to low levels of radiation as safe when the risks are no

> greater than other risks we accept as an inevitable part of life?  Our

> continued insistence on using scientifically accurate terminology in a

> non-scientific setting is, I believe, a part of the problem with the

> public's exaggerated fears of radiation.

> 

> When we say that driving or working is safe we are not saying, or even

> implying that there is zero risk from that activity.  We are simply

> saying that the risks are so low that the benefits of that activity

> outweigh them.  Using similar logic, we should have no qualms about

> saying that, say, radioactive waste disposal is safe because the risks

> are so low compared to the benefits accrued from radioactive materials

> use.

> 

> Referring to low-level exposure to radiation or radioactivity as being

> "safe" will not, in itself, solve the problems of radiation phobia.

> But it won't hurt, and to me it  seems more intellectually honest than

> calling familiar activities "safe" while unfamiliar activities are

> "low-risk".

> 

> Andy

> 

> P. Andrew Karam, Ph.D., CHP

> Research Assistant Professor

> Rochester Institute of Technology

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

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/