Re: Chernobyl and Psychosomatic Illness

[welch@CEBAF.GOV (welch)]

Gary Schroeder wrote:

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.....

I don't have any argument with that point Gary.  That's why I said that we
can and should take a lesson from this and keep it in mind when we try to
communicate to the "public".  My opinion is we should be more willing to
generalize and use a black and white, "go-no-go" approach the way the media
does, only in the "opposite" direction. Where these stories seem to draw the
line is that any radiation is too much, and therefore deadly.  We should be
using similar simple approach but somehow connect it to "safe, unsafe"
levels.  Maybe use our dose limits for this purpose. I know it's a lot more
complicated than that, but "we" (HP) seem to have a hard time making things
simple enough for the average person.


.......  >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 think most people already understand the idea of risk, although they might
not think about it much.  They know that every time they take the wheel of a
car, get on a plane, or walk down the street that they are taking a risk.
The problem is that they DON'T evaluate radiation in the same way.  We have
failed them somehow on this.  I'm not trying to trample on people's fears, I
was pointing out that that these fears are being legitimized and perpetuated
by using a comparison such as "a thousand times normal".  People understand
the difference between falling one foot and falling a thousand feet.  But
does that accurately represent the difference between ten microrem and 10
millirem?  Don't people also understand the concept of :  " If you stayed in
this room all day, you'd get about the same dose as you normally get from
being alive for about 3 or four months."  or  "If we stay in here an hour,
it's about like getting a chest xray - these are very small doses which
result in insignificant risk."  ?????

If I didn't know better, I'd say these guys go to school to learn how to put
things in the most dramatic, fear-evoking terminology possible. 
Keith Welch
Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility
Newport News VA
welch@cebaf.gov