RE: RADSAFE digest 1623

["Edwards, Richard W" <Richard.Edwards@PSS.Boeing.com>]

Looked at from this perspective, the graph as presented tends to support
the misconception that radiation exposures have a phenomenal impact for
any specific effect. More to the point, how is an uniformed member of
the public going to look at it? I think they would interpret it as "any
exposure, no matter how small, results in a significant additional
risk". How about we show this to a number of people and ask them to
interpret it?

Rick Edwards, Analyst

The Boeing Company, Radiation Protection Technical Services Group
richard.w.edwards@boeing.com         (425) 393-8250

> ----------
> From: 	rkathren@tricity.wsu.edu[SMTP:rkathren@tricity.wsu.edu]
> 
> Acting on your suggestion, I checked the web site.  As you indicated,
> the
> plot shows a positive risk at zero dose. This is not at all incorrect
> but is
> actually the proper presentation.  For example, if a specific effect
> (eg
> thyroid cancer) is selected as end point, there will be a natural
> incidence
> in a theoretical unirradiated population.  This then is what the graph
> depicts.  To do otherwise would be misleading, for it would imply that
> the
> entire risk was radiation induced.
> 
> Ron Kathren
>