Re: accuracy in language (was airport x-rays)

[rkathren@tricity.wsu.edu (Ron L. Kathren)]

Mike (to whom I give thanks for the kind words) is right on regarding the
(mis)use of the words 'radioactivity' and 'radiation' by the media.  In
addition to we as health physicists using these words correctly, especially
when communicating with the media, perhaps we could work through the
journalism professional society and get the proper usage and definitions
included in such things as the New York Times style guide.  It may be
productive to ask the HPS Public Information Committee to take on this task.
I plan to explore same myself and will report back later to RADSAFE subscribers.

Reflecting back, I recall a news article once quoting a health physicist as
indicating a dose in 'deep rem'.  What the HP had actually done was specify
a contamination value in units of 'd per m'.  I guess we need to enunciatte
clearly, too!

Ron Kathren

 >
>I echo Ron's plea for accuracy in technical communication.  All of us,
>myself included, certainly have some slang and some sloppy approximations
>that we lapse into at times, but the reminder is a point well taken, and
>was, I might add, respectfully made.
>
>On a somewhat related matter, I wondered if anyone has had any success in
>getting ANYONE in the media (whose primary job, I understand is the use of
>**words**) to accurately distinguish between "radioactivity" and
>"radiation"?  This is so often misused, in AP wire releases, by major
>network news anchors, etc. that it would seem that someone would care.
>"Radiation" does not normally leak from power plants (except perhaps through
>cracks in shields), nor is it usually inhaled, or found in foods, etc, etc,
>etc.  But this is the common usage in the press.  I have approached several
>national media groups about this, and been shown Perot-sized deaf ears.
>Anyone had any success with this or any related communication-type issues in
>the general public or the press?
>
>Mike Stabin
>
>
>