Melange

[xat@inel.gov (Alden Tschaeche)]

Messages on RADSAFE today sparked a thought that I thought might be
worth sharing.  Strom started it with his article on Wing/Cohen/etc. 
Others continued contributing, not only on that subject, but several
others.  Almost all of the discussion was about the harmful effects of
radiation.  The sparked thought is:  Why are we so concerned with
harmful effects?  Why aren't we at least equally, if not more, concerned
with beneficial effects? 

The note about the media may give insight.  When the only thing the
media can sell to the public is bad news, it might be part of the
answer.  However, the media respond to the public to some extent.  So,
why is it that the public wants to hear bad news?  Since the public is
us, the question might be: "Why do I want to hear or read or see, bad
news?"  The psychologists among us might assist here.

I know that I will read avidly about a TWA 800 disaster.  I like
disaster movies (The Posiedon Adventure, Hotel, etc.).  Why, I don't
know and won't even hazard a guess.  Is it the same in other countries?

The fact that the USA and other countries have embraced radon as a lung
carcinogen without the science being complete (e.g. other insults in
mines may have contributed to the miner's lung cancer, therefore the
radon risk numbers are too high, even if they are real), says something
about human psychology.

Why do we emphasize "radiation protection" and not "radiation health?"

It seems to me that we need a new paradigm, one that is more optimistic,
supportive and alive, than the current one.  If any of you have thoughts
about what this new paradigm should be, this might be the time to share
those ideas.  Who knows what we can come up with.

Al Tschaeche xat@inel.gov