Absolutely, Positively, 100% Safe

[Mike.Ashland@gsbsc.gensig.com]

     To all,
     
     Within the recent "threshold" thread, I have seen a couple of messages 
     where the author asserts that the public wants to be assured that low 
     levels of radiation are absolutely "safe" (or something to that effect).
     
     Speaking strictly as a member of that public, how do you arrive at 
     that conclusion?
     
     Most thinking members of the public will agree that airline travel is 
     statistically safer than travel via private automobile. Most agree 
     that wearing a seatbelt is safer than not. Most agree that playing 
     football is more likely to lead to serious injury than playing golf. 
     In other words, in most human endeavors, G. Public "knows" the 
     relative risk associated with various activities. They may be 
     misinformed, they may not know the real (read "calculated by 
     knowledgeable experts", if you will) risks, but they do, quite 
     successfully within their own contexts, make nearly continuous 
     judgments concerning the relative safety or degree of risk associated 
     with various activities.
     
     The point being that most individuals will admit, as mortal beings, 
     that there is no such thing as an absolutely safe activity or 
     practice. To propose to meet such a standard stops all progress, all 
     education, and all hope for a better world. As one person observed, 
     the anti's won't be happy until we stop using electricity altogether.
     
     As I see it, our ultimate mission as radiation safety professionals is 
     public education, so that some day, hopefully in my lifetime, the 
     "average" member of the public understands how radiation fits into the 
     complex scheme of risks that he or she encounters daily. The myth of 
     "absolute safety" has no place here.
     
     Mike Ashland, RSO
     EST
     Pittsfield, Maine, USA
     mike.ashland@gsbsc.gensig.com
     
     Any and all opinions expressed above are those of the author and do not 
     necessarily reflect the official position of EST.