Re:NJ incident

[hwade@triax.com (H. Wade Patterson)]

Group:

Could it be that the wearing of Pb aprons, and the other manifestations
of fear, were the result of the health physics community believing and
adopting the dogma that, "a single event at the cellular level can give
rise to cancer?

It seems very likely to me.

If so, who can we blame but ourselves ?

Here are my thoughts on public perception and radiation.

1.  It is our responsibility as professionals and scientists to:
a. describe actual observations
b. explain them, if possible, and to
c. speak out.

2.  Refutation is unnecessary. "Fitting" to a model is unnecessary. An
informed public can judge for themselves.

3.  The key to an informed public, and an informed legislative, judicial
and executive government is knowledge of the actual unfitted
experimental observations.

4.  Intelligent decisions cannot be made without such knowledge.

5.  Honesty and ethics demand that a clear description be given of
actual observations without "fitting."

6.  Explanations of "risk" and putting "data" in "perspective" are
counter-productive.  So is an "explanation" of "statistics."  So are
statements that people need to be "educated."

7.  It is impossible to over-emphasize the importance of cognizance of
actual (unfitted) human response to radiation.

8.  The present perceptions of the public, of professionals, and of
officials are a direct result of being unaware of actual observations of
human response to radiation. The present perceptions are a result of
seeing the "fitted" data rather than actual data.

9.  A non-biased description of actual observations is that at first the
incidence of human cancer decreases with increasing exposure to
radiation, then reaches a minimum, and finally begins to rise.

Best wishes,

-- 
Wade

mailto:hwade@triax.com

H.Wade Patterson
1116 Linda Lane
Lakeview OR 97630
ph 541 947-4974