Re: Chernobyl and Psychosomatic Illness

[welch@CEBAF.GOV (welch)]

Peter, I caught that part as well.  I have same frustration regarding
classification of these illnesses.  I also thought the piece was relatively
"easy" to take - it was not as chocked full of hysteria as most.  However,
the theme to the whole thing still had two worrysome aspects to it.  First,
the "experts" and public health representatives seem to be promoting the idea
that as a resident of the area, you are living with the prospect that
"tomorrow I may come down with cancer and die".  Shown on the program was a
middle school biology class being held outside, with the translation of the
teacher's warning about venturing out into the forrest - to the tune of
"don't eat the nuts or berries, they may be life threatening" (not exact
quote).  Although I think that people should be cautioned about these kinds
of activities, there seems to be no room for a risk-based approach.  It's
the all-or-nothing syndrome: "any radiation exposure is potentially deadly."
This is very frustrating, but may be a good lesson in how the public
sector's perceptions "have" to be managed.  This is probably somewhat
exagerated in the case of the former Soviet countries because their
governments kept so much from them for so long.  They had always been told
"it is safe" (RE nuclear energy).  The idea of an acceptable amount of risk
was never part of the Russian government's approach to informing the public.

The other thing that struck me was more of a "feeling" I got related to
Peter's comment about some uniqueness in these radiation related
psychosomatic illnesses.  That because the stress is brought on by fear of
radiation-related illness, the person is somehow "more" sick than a person
who has stress-related problems stemming from something less mysterious.  I
got the impression that I was witnessing a "cop-out" of sorts, which
involves a mass media system (among others) who is frustrated by not being
able to point at any three-headed babies, and is therefore forced to report
on the psychological impact - the stress-related symptoms that are familiar
to most of us - the mundane heart attacks and hypertension that we accept as
"normal".  So, to make these mundane things newsworthy, they are being
injected with a dose of radiation to liven them up and make them more
mysterious.  "This ain't no psychological crap, these people are really sick."

One last thing, the report did get it's subtle jabs in.  I noted a statement
by the reporter refering to their rushed tour through parts of the unit 4
plant.  They stopped by the control room but could not stay long, the
radiation levels there were still "a thousand times normal".  In my book
that's about 5-10 mrem/hr.  Why is the public being led to believe that to
stay in this environment for more than a few minutes is extreeeeemly risky?

My opinions only, as usual.
Keith Welch
welch@cebaf.gov
------------------------------------------------------------------
>Radsafeters,
>I was caught unawares by the 60 Minutes coverage of chernobyl.  By what I
>saw, last part and what my wife said it was pretty good considering the
>general run of reporting of things nuclear.  But I was taken by a person
>I took to be a physician, possibly a psychatirist, and also European
>but I'n not sure of either.  What the man said was the illnesses that many
>residents of the area were reporting were not psychosomatic that they
>were real stress and fear induced symptoms.  Did anybody else catch that?
>Isn't a psychosomatic illness real, resulting from fear and stress,
>whether rational or irrational.  Someone who is a hypochondriac imagines
>symptoms based on his or her exposure to information about illnesses.  That
>person is not sick just worried.  Someone who has a psychosomatic illness
>is sick, has real symptoms that result from anxiety, fear, or stress or
>some combination.  The classic example is ulcers.  Stress related 
>symptom which can sometimes be cleared up by illiminating or greatly
>reducing stress.
> 
>Am I wrong or is radiation still getting a bum wrap?  If the fear of
>adverse health affects, and the stress of disruption of your life
>by evacuation, etc. caused real symptoms, which I do not for an instant
>doubt they did, why isn't that illness called psychosomatic?  What is 
>different about it that it should be callen not psychosomatic?  
> 
>Just wondering?
> 
>Peter G. Vernig, VA Medical Center, Denver, vernig.peter@forum.va.gov
> 
>This message hsa been reviewed by no one and represents only my own 
>opinion,
>not that of Denver VAMC, Dept. Veterans Affairs, or U.S. Government.
>