Re: Linear Hypothesis... -Reply

[Schoenhofer <schoenho@via.at>]

At 15:32 15.10.1996 -0500, you wrote:
>Hey guys,
>
>Educate the public about LNT, low level radiation hormesis....Think you'd
>better start by campaigning to have all those good old B grade Sci-Fi
>flicks from the 50s and 60s pulled from Saturday morning T.V.  After all
>any 10 year old can tell you what made Bill Bixby the big green
>incredible one.  And they won't answer steroids.  It's a cultural thing at
>this point, revamping LNT is not going to change the publics perception.
>
>==========================================================================

Dear ??????

Your comment is excellent - I followed the discussion and I am tired to read
all the time the scientific stuff - nobody of the public cares about any LNT
hypothesis - nobody knows about it. There are many other points, related to
questions of mass media (like comics!), social questions, economic
questions, socioeconomic questions, distrust into politics, science, and so
on, and so on. When you define a threshold of x mrem/h, Bq/kg, mCi/kg, Sv/y
and what so ever - nobody of the public will care for it. Everybody will
believe, that these thresholds have been set to accomodate the industry, the
government, the scientists. There is a common mistrust in any questions of
limits - the public does not believe in them. When the limit for Cs-137 plus
Cs-134 in meat was set im the European Union at 600 Bq/kg, people were
searching (and demanding) to be supplied with meat of 0 (zero) Bq/kg.
Whatever the contamination of milk powder was from the European Union - the
countries being in need of milk powder bought it from Australia and New
Zealand, where there was zero contamination. It did cost the same prize.
Developing countries refused to accept shipments of milk powder intended for
caritative help, because they suspected the milk powder to be contaminated
and only therefore being donated. 

One does not make things better by accusing the authorities of playing a
negative role. There are enough excellent scientists in the international
committees (like ICRP) and involved in legislation. In my country (Austria)
all proposals regarding laws and ordinances  h a v e  to be sent to the
relevant institutions affected by them for comment (research institutes,
medical doctors associations, industry, etc. etc.). I have once received a
copy of a proposal for drinking water radioactivity put forward by the EPA -
and I think to remember that everybody, who wanted to comment on it was
invited to do so. Legislation in the USA seems to me not to be of the
dictatoric type. 

Why should not doses be reduced, if it can be done easily? I sure do not
suopport ideas to reduce doses at whatever costs. But I cannot understand
the discussion - which is also going on in Europe - to absolutely reduce the
numbers of dosemeters for staff involved in radiological work - just to save
a few dollars - awithout caring that a law suite can cost the company
millions of dollars. Have these people forgot to make a risk - benefit
calculation?

What to do? Educate the public? Yes - but not in the way trying to show
them, how stupid they are and that we scientists know everything better -
simply because we  a r e   the scientists. 


P.S. Please would you, dear radsafers, all sign your contributions, so that
we know, who sent her/his comment, the affiliation, the address .......

Franz
Schoenhofer
Habichergasse 31/7
A-1160 WIEN
AUSTRIA/EUROPE
Tel./Fax:	+43-1-4955308
Tel.:		+43-664-3380333
e-mail:		schoenho@via.at