PS. population exposure/inverse attention relation

["Björn" Cedervall <bjorn_cedervall@hotmail.com>]

>Could someone explain to me why so much physicist effort, at
>least in the United States, is devoted to controlling occupational
>exposure to ionizing radiation while so little is directed toward
>reducing medical (including dental) exposure.

The rare and dramatic events often make better headlines than common killers 
like heart disease. Sensational media (and their readers) are concerned 
about what _may_ happen. Long ago I visited a department at one of our worst 
such newspapers ("Expressen") where they wrote many scary stories about 
quite unimportant health matters among most other selling topics. It was 
quite illuminating - the environment was noisy (TV sports on at a loud 
volume - I like sports - the point here is about the distraction), a few 
beer cans here and there - coffee (much stronger here than in the U.S.) cups 
all over - junk food packages - just very messy - many unusually overweight 
people who probably never excercise except for going to work - _and_ very 
heavy cigarette smoke. I can't recall any workplace where I saw that much of 
exhaled dangers... Try to tell these people about health matters. Clearly my 
personal reflections...

bjorn_cedervall@hotmail.com


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html