Psychological Impact

["J. J. Rozental" <josrozen@netmedia.net.il>]

To all

Last month I asked  to RADSAFERS information on Clearance levels. Personally
I received many informations' on exempt levels and not on clearance levels,
that's mean:  many colleagues are confounding  exemption levels and
clearance levels. To get my point I need, first to clarify both concepts:

Exemption, radiation sources that never enter the regulatory control
management. In nother word,  control is not imposed, that's mean control is
excluded from regulatory control. Examples calibration sources, smoke detector;

Clearance,  radiation source that is released from regulatory control, in
other words,  control is removed, that's mean the control is released from
regulatory control. Example some type of waste

The distinction between exemption (exempt) and clearance (cleared) has been
made only recently and in the literature there is yet confusion, and so
"exemption" and "exempt" are often used in circumstances where terms such as
"clearance" and "cleared" would currently be used.

 Made clear the above point and going ahead,  personally I am interested in
the near future  polemic question on reuse of  recycling  materials from
decommissioned nuclear power plant, as steel, aluminum and concrete.
Considering the  "unconditional clearance levels", the materials may be
released from the site without regard to their destination, since the
material is deemed to be outside regulatory concern. The polemic controversy
will arise on  the population psychological impact, due the reuse of the
recycling materials, especially materials being transferred between
countries.  Why? -- The colleagues know the world is not the same since
Chernobyl. The Psychological impact due contamination increased
exponentially  and now symbolizes a very important role in the nuclear area,
dealing with sentiment and felling of the population. 
About the use of such unconditional clearance levels' materials, the largest
collective doses may be expected to arise from recycling of steel and
concrete into consumer goods or into buildings or  motor cars with which
humans may come into close contact during their normal use. For steel
recycling,  Co-60 seems likely to be the most important radionuclide present.
How to conduct this subject in the context of  the general population?
Who among you fellows will live or  buy a car knowing they were made with
recycled material from power reactor? -- what is the family's felling on
this subject?
Please, fellows, to thing in  terms of radiation  psychological impact in
the population you should avoid any  abstract words, they do not understand
our jargon. For  radiation psychological impact one should understand what
population normally accepts and not accepts. Most populations accept to live
in any building because they know and see every body living in a building or
house. They also know that materials used in the building  or house's
constructions frequently contain natural radionuclides, and we know  at
levels close to or more than the recommended clearance levels. Last Remark I
am not a psychologist, but technically I am involved with the sensitivity of
the population and an effective risk communication.

RADSAFERS of   many countries,  how many among you, believe or not  in  near
future,  for opposite reception by the population  on  reuse of recycling
materials from nuclear power reactor into consumer goods, buildings,   motor
cars, bridges, etc?

J. J. Rozental <josrozen@netmedia.net.il>
Consultant, Radiation Safety & Regulation
for developing country, Israel