Talking to the "public"

[HWADE@aol.com]

Greetings to all!
Here are my thoughts on public perception and radiation.

1.  It is our responsibility as professionals and scientists to:
a. describe actual observations
b. explain them, if possible, and to
c. speak out.
2.  Refutation is unnecessary. "Fitting" to a model is unnecessary. An
informed public can judge for themselves.
3.  The key to an informed public, and an informed legislative, judicial and
executive government is knowledge of the actual unfitted experimental
observations.
4.  Intelligent decisions cannot be made without such knowledge.
5.  Honesty and ethics demand that a clear description be given of actual
observations without "fitting."
6.  Explanations of "risk" and putting "data" in "perspective" are
counter-productive.  So is an "explanation" of "statistics."  So are
statements that people need to be "educated."
7.  It is impossible to over-emphasize the importance of cognizance of actual
(unfitted) human response to radiation.
8.  The present perceptions of the public, of professionals, and of officials
are a direct result of being unaware of actual observations of human response
to radiation. The present perceptions are a result of seeing the "fitted"
data rather than actual data.
9.  A non-biased description of actual observations is that at first the
incidence of human cancer decreases with increasing exposure to radiation,
then reaches a minimum, and finally begins to rise.
10.  A non-biased conclusion based on actual observations is that the Linear
Model is wrong.

H.Wade Patterson
1116 Linda Lane
Lakeview OR 97630