RE: public understanding of our nuclear jargon

["Strom, Daniel J" <daniel.j.strom@pnl.gov>]

Jean-Charles ABBE <abbe@in2p3.fr> and readers of RADSAFE,

I was unable to read your attachment, since it had been encoded.  

----------------

An idea very similar to the one you suggest was proposed by TM Koval and Richard
J. Vetter of the Mayo Clinic several years ago.  Dr. Vetter was Editor-in-Chief
of the journal *Health Physics* for 5 years or so, and was recently president of
the Health Physics Society (USA).  Here's his abstract:

Health Phys June 1992;62(6 Supp):S62 Koval TM Vetter RJ A new scale for
expressing radiation risk. [Paper THAM]

Abstract -- Public fears about health risks of radiation could be mitigated if
health physicists, public health officials, and scientists presented radiation
risks more precisely and in terms that could be more easily understood.  A
commonly used method of expressing radiation risk to the public is to relate
radiation risk or exposure in terms of the number of chest x rays.  While this
method may be logical based on the supposition that many individuals in
westernized nations have received or are familiar with chest x rays, it is
conjecturable how many individuals possess a reasonable understanding of the
radiation dose or risk associated with a chest x ray.  More importantly,
expressing the risk from various environmental radiation exposures in terms of
the number of chest x rays is inappropriate from a scientific point of view due
to differences in routes of exposure, organs and tissues exposed, energy of the
radiation, dose rate, duration of exposure, and a host of other factors.  It
also can increase the anxiety in patients who need a chest x ray to complete the
evaluation of their medical condition.  In this paper we present a logarithmic
scale for expressing the relative hazards from exposure to ionizing radiation.
The numerical values on this scale are similar to the Richter scale in terms of
the degree of hazard expressed, e.g., values less than 5 are not necessarily
dangerous levels, values in the range of 6-7 are in a high exposure range and
have a realistic chance of occurring, and values over 7 represent extremely high
exposures with devastating consequences.  This scale will be placed into
perspective with numerous radiation sources and with problems associated with
communication of risk to the public.

----------------

I agree with you that we have a communication problem.

However, I don't think a single number can express quantity of radioactive
material, "radiation level" (i.e., dose-rate quantities), and "radiation amount"
(i.e., dose).  Part of the communication problem is that members of the media do
not understand the difference between these fundamentally different concepts.

- Dan Strom

The opinions expressed above, if any, are mine alone and have not been reviewed
or approved by Battelle, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, or the U.S.
Department of Energy.

Daniel J. Strom, Ph.D., CHP
Risk Analysis & Health Protection Group, Environmental Technology Division,
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Mail Stop K3-56, PO BOX 999, Richland, Washington 99352-0999 USA
Telephone (509) 375-2626 FAX (509) 375-2019 mailto:daniel.j.strom@pnl.gov
Brief Resume: http://www.pnl.gov/bayesian/strom/strombio.htm
Pagemaster for  http://www.pnl.gov/bayesian   http://qecc.pnl.gov
http://bidug.pnl.gov

From: Jean-Charles ABBE <abbe@in2p3.fr>

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