Re: Radiophobia

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Dave Scherer writes:

> At 12:39 PM 10/10/96 -0500, you wrote:
> 
> >>I submit the following:
> >>1.  The public's aversion to radiation and the public's reaction to other
> >>agents (chemicals) are closely related (common cause).
> >>2.  The public reacts as strongly to chemical agents as they do to radiation.
> >>3.  The public responds negatively to chemicals with and without  recognized
> >>thresholds (e.g. alar).
> >>Thus, LNT is not the (main) cause of radiophobia.
> >>
> >>Could those who attribute radiophobia to LNT explain which of these is
> >>incorrect?
> >
> >Your second premise is the culprit.  Di-nitro-chickenwire is bad, but that
> >radiation stuff can REALLY mess you up.
> >
> So if NCRP (or someone) produces a threshold model they will think differently?

Yes. (Obviously, when well founded on the scientific data, including work
that's suppressed, in publishing and research, with a significant effort to
explain it as with many other issues accepted by "the public". But first,
explain it to "management", and to "public policy" types. Forget the public.
If you/HPS can't explain it to your boss, you can't explain it to the public.) 

The "public" is rational. They respond to what they are told by the weight of
evidence. The anti's would never have "convinced" them if not supported by the 
scientists. 

> Dave Scherer
> scherer@uiuc.edu

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com