Re: Bhopal, radiation, and risk standards

[bobcherry@cox.net]

Andy notes, "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." 



I note that the "chasing" carries its own risk.



For example, three military members lost their lives in industrial accidents during the Enewetak cleanup. Two more disappeared in a boating accident, for a total of 5 deaths resulting from the cleanup. To be fair, I must also say that we were cleaning up quite a bit more than a few picocuries, but my point is that the risk of industrial accidents during cleanups and surveys is real and quantifiable.



Bob C



> 

> From: "A  Karam" <paksbi@rit.edu>

> Date: 2004/12/07 Tue PM 12:19:51 EST

> To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

> Subject: Bhopal, radiation, and risk standards

> 

> 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/