RE: Linear Hypothesis IS the Cause of Public Fear of Radiation

["Hodgkins, 1LT Andrew T." <HODGKINS@eglin.af.mil>]

At 11:31 AM 10/9/96 -0500, Keith Welch wrote:

> >The LNTH IS the cause of the public fear,
>
> I disagree.
>
> >or, rather, the corruption of the LNTH idea is the cause.
>
> I agree.
>
> People are willing and able to use stochastic risk models as the basis of
> evaluating risk.  Risks of driving, flying, smoking, drowning, can all be
> evaluated this way.  But it's the corruption of the idea that causes the
> problem.  People know that they are taking a risk every time they get into a
> car- they see the statistics on fatalities.  However they also "know" that
> getting into a car ONCE and driving to the grocery store involves much less
> risk than driving 50 miles a day, every day for 50 years.  Nobody would
> agree with a preposterous assertion that the two examples are equally
> dangerous.  Yes, they know that death CAN occur on that very first trip, but
> it's extremely(?) unlikely.

Much more to the point, people know how to control a car.  Or at least,
when they're driving they *think* they know how to control it.  <g>  The
perception of being in control does a lot to reduce fear.

Since radiation is imperceptible to the senses, and is therefore an
unknown quantity,  it's a lot easier to be scared of it.  Of course, as
Spencer Weart's book points out, Hollywood and the media haven't helped
either.

What if everyone grew up with a portable count-rate meter on their
wrist?  They'd have a better idea of the relative risks then, would they
not?  "Hmm...there's just as many chirps here next to this nuclear plant
as there are in my living room, the grocery store, my doctor's office,
and cousin Bubba's house.  What's the big deal?"

The average Joe or Joette just isn't "exposed" (sorry!) to the concept
of radiation as a part of everyday life, so it's a lot harder to
comprehend.  If they were, the task of educating the public would be a
whole lot simpler, IMHO.

> Somehow this logic does not survive when it comes to radiation (or some
> other nasties that they're scared to death of).  The risk is linear, but the
> slope of the line is zero, and it lies at 100%!!!
>
> I think it's due in part to the fact that with the car example, (and other
> common "everyday" things) they have a physical thing - every time they get
> home alive, they've proved the point that just because there's a risk, it
> does not mean that participating in the activity guarantees a negative
> outcome.  In fact, they build up confidence over a long period of time, that
> odds are, they WON'T suffer injury from participating.

Quite so.  Radiation is a common everyday thing, too...there's just no
awareness that this is the case.  If everyone grew up with a way to
"see" radiation around them, I really doubt there would be much concern.
 Of course, if one believes in the LNTH model, one might be concerned
that the public might even get too complacent.  8)

> The other part is of course the issue of a risk that they are subjected to
> involuntarilly.  People generally react negatively to this regardless of the
> benefits or proof that the risk is "negligable" - logic goes out the door.
>
> Keith Welch
> Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
> Newport News VA
> welch@cebaf.gov

Andy Hodgkins, 1Lt, USAF, BSC
Bioenvironmental Engineer
hodgkins@eglin.af.mil

Disclaimer:  The opinions expressed above, are, of course, mine alone
and do not represent those of the Air Force, U.S. Government, or anyone
else I am affiliated with who might get upset with me.  This message is
not pledged to be free from defects, and no warranty is either expressed
or implied.  Best if read within 30 days from the date shown.