Re: Radioactivity from burning coal

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Leo Bobek writes,

> Mr. Loesch provides some interesting radionuclide release data from the 
> recent Science News (Oct. 1, Vol 146, No. 14) article on burning coal.
> 
> Unfortunately, such comparisons and discussions of relative risk are 
> ineffective with the general public.  The former US Council for Energy 
> Awareness (now Nuclear Energy Institute) published some nice public 
> opinion research, "Communicating with the Public About Radiation".  What 
> they found is that pointing out other sources of uncontrolled radiation
> exposure only makes the public more uneasy.  Their first response would be 
 > to obtain greater regulation and control over these sources!


This is true. The "audience" is us! (as in:  We have seen the enemy...) :-)

Really, we need to look at objective standards, and expect a "balanced",
objective evaluation, as it applies to policy and regulation! The public is
responding to what they are being told! We fail to address the issues and
respond to those who abuse technical data and analysis. 

> The only messages that appear to work well are the ones that state the 
> benefits of radioactive materials.

As the technical issues begin to be addressed substantively, the public
may also be influenced by the regulatory process wasting $100s Billions
on "politically motivated" targets of opportunity, while much larger, more
technically or politically intractable, sources are ignored. (The $$$ are
therefore of NO benefit in reducing exposure or protecting public health,
BUT they are really being spent in the economy for the "benefit" of the 
advocates and regulators.

> I also agree with Jim Muckerheide's approach.  The radiophobia has gotten 
> out of control and one of the root causes is the linear-no-threshold 
> HYPOTHESIS (exclamation intended).  As Mr. Covey points out in his book "7 
 > Habits of Highly Effective People", we have to change the paradigm.  If 

> we continue to preach and accept there is no safe level of radiation 
> exposure then as Jim stated, the use radioactive materials will go the 
> way of the railroad.
> 
Note that the report previously distributed about the costs per life saved
in the $10s Billions for controlling radiation releases from facilities
probably used the "linear no-threshold" "model" in its risk analysis (no one 
here has 
seen this work?). The results would go up by orders of magnitude with the
true conservative application of a sigmoidal dose-response (obviously
infinite $$$/life saved, with understanding that low-dose radiation exposure 
 dose-response DATA demonstrates, at-worst, a threshold!?)  :-)


> Just a few ravings and musings.

And more!

Regards, Jim