Re: Intentional Use of Radionuclides for Harm

[antatnsu@pacbell.net]

Kim Merritt wrote:

> >"Safe" and "dangerous" are terms that we may never actually be able to
> >quantify, with respect to public opinion about radiation.

But we must.

> What the public
> >needs to be taught is that there is a certain level of risk associated with
> >a certain level of radiation.

They will never learn it.

> I think this comes down to having differing views of the term "safe".  In
> my opinion the public looks at the term "safe" as meaning risk free.

True.

> When
> I think of something being safe I look at it more from a risk perspective.

But the public doesn't.

> What is the relative risk of this compared to the rest of the hazards in my
> life?  Given this difference, if I used the public perspective of "safe" I
> would have to answer no to the question regarding whether 5 rem per year is
> safe.

Why not.  Where is the data that demonstrates 5 rem is not safe?

> Of course under a risk based perpective it is safe and it also
> explains why someone would spend their own money to be "safer", read
> minimizing your risk.

Again, where are the data demonstrating there is any risk at all at 5 rem?

> Of course, I would not spend my own money to lower
> my exposure, that's what employers are for!

But you do spend your money in the form of higher prices for nuclear electricity
and higher taxes for DOE to waste billions in useless cleanups, ALARA programs
and shielding.

> Ultimately, although we seem to be speaking the same language as the
> public, our meaning is different than theirs.  Granted, it may seem like
> semantics but it can lead to instances where we seem to be speaking out of
> both sides of our mouths, "Yes it's safe, although there is some minimal
> risk ...".
>
> What to do, what to do...?
>
> I think this is where educational programs like the one Jay Shelton at
> Santa Fe Prep has(see earlier thread on INS laudry), have the opportunity
> to make some progress for the future.

If that program educates health physicists in the knowledge that low doses are
safe, I might agree that some progress may be made.  However, I don't know what
the program content is.

Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net

begin:          vcard
fn:             Al Tschaeche
n:              Tschaeche;Al
org:            Nuclear Standards Unlimited
email;internet: antatnsu@postoffice.pacbell.net
title:          CEO
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard