Re: HPS News Aug. Editorial

[Leo Bobek <bobek@WPI.EDU>]

On Wed, 17 Aug 1994 SIMPSOND@orau.gov wrote:

>           I have enjoyed the recent comments on the knowledge of our
>           congress in the areas of radiation, but I wonder if at times
>           we are "shooting ourselves in the foot".  I was recently
>           approached to write a reply to the August editorial in the
>           HP journal on radiation warnings on cigarettes.  My initial
>           reaction was that I had glanced at the article but had
>           assumed it was meant to be regarded as humorous.  In
>           rereading the item, I was surprised to realize that
>           apparently it was serious.
> 
>           While well-meaning, is the idea of associating all the ills
>           of cigarette smoking with radiation simply going to inflate
>           the fears of the public (and congress) about radiation?
>           While not an expert in the area, my understanding was that
>           the nicotine, tars, etc. in the cigarette were also known
>           cancer agents and to ignore their role would be poor
>           science.  Does anyone have more information on the subject
>           or have comments on the editorial?
> 
>           Dave Simpson
>           ORAU
> 

Dave:

I too was looking for the punch line at the end of that editorial.  Dade 
Moeller is a Fellow of the HPS and member since 1959.  And while he 
obviously means well -- hoping to discourage smokers -- I am dismayed 
by his approach.  I strongly disagree with his suggestion that the HPS 
should push for a warning on cigarette packages stating "WARNING: 
Cigarettes are a major source of radiation exposure".  Wade believes this 
will be a "win-win" situation for HPS.  His premise is that if the 
warning is put in place and subsequently discourages smoking, the HPS 
will be recognized for its role in saving lives.  If the warnings are 
ignored, he preposes this signifies acceptance on the part of the public 
for radiation and all things nuclear.

Geez Louise, where to begin!

First of all, and I think we would all agree by this time, that we "the 
public" are willing to accept VOLUNTARY PERSONAL RISK.  However, when it 
comes to INVOLUNTARY IMPOSED RISK, no matter how small, it is unacceptble.  
Thus, its ok if I sky-dive, but don't put a nuclear power plant or rad waste 
dump within 50 miles of me.

A radiation warning in cigarettes (hey, why not use the tri-foil symbol?) 
will only reinforce the belief that radioactivity is the bane of humanity.
Such a warning will not stop people from smoking.  Besides, the federal 
government is working very hard to eliminate that liberty.

Lets get back the job of educating the public rather than scaring them.
Nix the rad warning on cigarettes.


L. Bobek
WPI