Re: Chernobyl and Psychosomatic Illness

["Wesley M. Dunn" <WDUNN@brc1.tdh.state.tx.us>]

Gary,

I think you have just demonstrated our greatest fault: Virtually no
one knows how to rationally deal with "high radiation levels" when
they show up.  Of course, that is because we have successfully
prevented such events from becoming routine.

I suspect that there are few of us here who have unexpectedly found
themselves in a high radiation area without getting anxious (at
least the first few times).  So how can we expect anything less from
the public at large?   I don't want a show of hands of people
who have high lifetime doses, but even most radiation workers don't
get any significant dose.

In many ways, the nuclear power industry may have been better off
having a few more early accidents to demonstrate that there wasn't
any big health risk.  After a while, people might start realizing a
few millirem (or even a few rem) really isn't that big of a deal.
The fear of the unknown is real.  The problem is that we have been
unable to make radiation safety/health physics a known quantity.

Wes

> Date:          Tue, 30 Apr 96 08:15:46 -0500
> Reply-to:      radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> From:          Gary Schroeder <schroede@mail.sep.bnl.gov>
> To:            Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject:       Chernobyl and Psychosomatic Illness

> I didn't see the report on 60 Min., but do you think this is reasonable?  I
> think you're asking a lot from a population that's LIVING with the realities
> of a serious nuclear accident.  This is not a theory to them, it's real.
> While we all understand the concept of risk and it's application to
> radiation protection, I wonder how many of us would be able to control our
> irrational fear when faced with the reality of living in the Ukraine.

>
> Hey, if I didn't know anything about health physics, I'd think "a thousand
> times background" was pretty serious, wouldn't you?  I'm not sure that's a
> jab or an attempt to mislead; I think it's an honest fear of radiation, the
> "silent killer".  While we believe we know what is considered safe and
> unsafe, we should be more receptive to people's fear (which is quite real),
> and not dismiss those fears simply because they aren't technically
> justified.  Asking that everyone comprehend the concept of "risk" probably
> isn't realistic.  How much education would that reporter have needed to
> fully comprehend what the significance of 10 mR/hr is?  He's unlikely to get
> the necessary lecture series before the story goes to press, I think.
>
> I'm not singling Keith out here, but I have noticed a tendency to deride the
> uneducated for their lack of understanding.  A deliberate attempt by a news
> organization to sensationalize a story is one thing; honest expression of
> fear of the unknown is another.

*********************************************************************
Wesley M. Dunn, C.H.P.                     512-834-6688
Deputy Director, Licensing                 512-834-6690 (fax)
(Texas) Bureau of Radiation Control        wdunn@brc1.tdh.state.tx.us
*********************************************************************