Re: A question of ethics

[mgoldman@ucdavis.edu (Dr. Marvin Goldman)]

>        Reply to:   RE>A question of ethics
>
>Oh great, another bureaucracy ..."The Federal Bureau of Medical/Nuclear
>Education".
>
>We all want cheaper, better and free medical care and now we're going to add
>nuclear physics education on top?  Now I know why the hospital is after me to
>become a "Multidisiplinary Medical Care Provider".
>
>Yuk! Yuk!, Just kidding...
>
>Mike Bohan
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>Michael J. Bohan, RSO   |  e-mail: mike.bohan@yale.edu
>Yale-New Haven Hospital |    Tele: (203) 785-2950
>Radiological Physics    |     FAX: (203) 737-4252
>20 York St. - WWW 204   |    As usual, everything I say may be plausibly
>New Haven, CT    06504  |    denied at my employer's convenience ...
>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>--------------------------------------
>Date: 24/06/96 11:46 AM
>To: Mike Bohan
>From: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>---SNIP----
>And here is where I'd like to make my pitch.
>
>Let's have the federal government require all risks of medical radiation
>exposure to be fully explained to every nuclear medicine and radiology
>patient.  That would be millions of people educated about radiation risks.
>We might be able to have the medical profession do what the rest of us have
>not been able to do, namely: educate the public about radiation risks.  In
>addition, the law could require recording the dose and reporting it to
>Congress and the public.  Then the public could see where the majority of
>their non-natural background exposure comes from.  Any thoughts about this
>idea?  If you agree, how do we get the appropriate law passed?  Al Tschaeche
>xat@inel.gov
>Al  Tschaeche xat@inel.gov phone: 208-526-3383, fax: 208-526-7291
>
>
>------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
>Received: by QuickMail.Yale.edu with SMTP;24 Jun 1996 11:41:33 -0400
>Received: from postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu by mail-relay1 with SMTP id AA17888
>  (5.67a/IDA-1.5 for <mike.bohan@yale.edu>); Mon, 24 Jun 1996 11:37:58 -0400
>Received: from romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu [128.174.74.24]) by
>postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA10834; Mon, 24 Jun 1996
>10:37:44 -0500
>Received: from localhost by romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (NX5.67d/NeXT-2.0)
>        id AA26622; Mon, 24 Jun 96 10:33:03 -0500
>Date: Mon, 24 Jun 96 10:33:03 -0500
>Message-Id: <9606241351.AA19553@morlock.inel.gov>
>Errors-To: melissa@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Reply-To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Originator: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Sender: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Precedence: bulk
>From: Al Tschaeche <xat@inel.gov>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>Subject: A question of ethics
>X-Listserver-Version: 6.0 -- UNIX ListServer by Anastasios Kotsikonas
>X-Comment:  Radiation Safety Distribution List
Before we promulgate any new laws on radiation education, who of you can
give me a few realistic radiation dose analogies for the basically
scientifically naive public?  I don't want any more cigaret equivalents,
but the concept is appropriate.  Also, since the risk of concern is cancer,
automobile accident rates are also off limits.  It might be useful if we
had a universal risk metric that ordinary people could understand...one
that does'nt put them to sleep in its definition.  Most people I speak to
cannot distinguish a one in a million from 1 in a 1000, no less handle
exponents.  After all the publications on radiation risks, why can't we
explain a dose?
mgoldman@ucdavis.edu
Marvin Goldman