Charlie Willis

[Martin_Haas@notes.ymp.gov]

The passing of Charlie is indeed unfortunate; we will all miss his
insightful commentary. I'm reminded also that we all too often take for
granted those around us [friends, associates, and loved ones] and don't
take the time to let them know that they are appreciated.  Having said
that, I believe that recent e-mail from Charlie touches all of us.  In my
opinion it is worth repeating and should be somehow captured in every
newspaper as it reflects on us as a professional society as well as our
society at large and offers a value lesson of considerable importance.


"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       "

Respectfully submitted,

Martin Haas
martin_haas@ymp.gov


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html