[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re[2]: Radon Information
Are you sure Charlie? Have you tried it? Let's see the data/proof. Thanks.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Radon Information
Author: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at guardian
Date: 1/25/99 2:05 PM
Bernie,
Of course, your radiological information about the relatively high doses from
radon and essentially zero doses from nuclear power is correct. Your statement
that "our Society is behaving insanely," seems; well let's call it hyperbole. I
must offer another viewpoint.
In my view, there is nothing insane about reacting to considerations other than
biological risk. Most of us are, to some extent, aware that the principal
causes of death are heart disease, cancer and aging, yet most of us devote
little of our efforts to combating these risks. This is true in part because we
are paid to do something else and that pay is important to address other
concerns, including domestic tranquility. Thus I see little role for insanity
in the behavior of the professionals in radiation protection.
Much of what we do in radiation protection is determined by the Government(s).
To the extent that they care, senior Government officials are aware of the
relative importance of the biological risk factors. However, Governments (at
least this democracy and the two dictatorships I have lived under) are far more
concerned about public opinion than about biological risk. Perhaps we might
desire that the emphasis be otherwise, but for elected officials, as well as for
the rest of us, a desire to keep their jobs does not suggest insanity.
A number of people have said that public reaction to radiation seems to be a
phobia, but it seems that this is indicative of a failure to separate the roles
of the different players. The activists are particularly important and some of
them do seem a bit unbalanced, but for the most part, they are serving their own
interests by selling books, building organizations, and generally enhancing
their stature in certain circles. Then their are the followers, some of whom
are genuinely concerned. This concern seems to be more indicative of an
inability or unwillingness to perform simple analyses than suggestive of
insanity. They are responding to the messages they get from the media, and no
one doubts the ability of the media to sell most anything. The media folk also
have good reasons for what they do; the risk of greatest concern is that of
being boring, and good news is inherently dull. Can you think of a Pulitzer
prize that was won for reporting that some potential proble!
!
m was being adequately controlled?
And so it goes. Most everyone in the profession has the highest regard for the
Bernie Cohen books, research and other efforts to make people aware of the
relative magnitudes of the risks with which we live. Nevertheless, I believe it
important to recognize that the alarmist opposition has a substantial
foundation; the problem cannot be resolved with antipsychotic medications.
Charlie Willis
caw@nrc.gov
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html