RE: MIT "Radiation Poisoning" Article

["Mcelrath Susan S." <MCELRATHS@rscpo1.wilm.ge.com>]

In the article about the MIT researcher the term "radiation poisoning " is 
used. I'm sure several of you also noticed the article mis-used terminology 
("received just under 600 microcuries of
radiation"), implied there were acute health effects from this intake, and 
implied (to me, anyway), that getting a dose "just under the occupational 
limit for a full year's exposure" was really bad news.

 I needn't expound on the numerous examples of similar errors I see in media 
reports. I've seen this thread on RADSAFE so I know I'm not the only one 
who's frustrated over it. I feel these instances of mis-information 
significantly increase my risk of stress-related illness!

I have only a few years' experience in the field but I've done a lot of 
training for factory workers. I've learned never to survey or swipe test 
anything without explaining what I'm doing to the people working around me. 
If I don't explain, curious minds will make up a wild story. Even as I write 
this there is an individual waiting on a swipe-test survey result of some 
tools he was using. We're talking very minor stuff here, but he's asked me 
to "let him know if he's going to be okay..." He's only halfway joking.

I try to explain and take advantage of every opportunity to educate, but 
radiation is still regarded as a mysterious, dangerous thing which kills 
people. I really believe this stigma comes from the secrecy of the early 
years with the bombs and all. Even though we RADSAFERS know better, the 
general public does not, nor do they really want to. Is it a basic human 
need to have some monster to be afraid of? Short of launching a massive 
public-education campaign about radiation's usefulness in today's society, I 
don't see a chance of public opinion changing significantly. Comments?

Susan McElrath
MCELRATHS@rscpo1.WILM.GE.COM

these are my opinions only and have not been reviewed or approved by my 
employer