Risk vs B+W

["Migliore, Charles W" <Charles.W.Migliore@nspco.com>]

I have read the "intentional harm" thread with interest, since it cuts to
the quick of the PR problems of things rad. It seems like everytime I meet
someone new and they learn I work in a nuc plant I end up doing PR work
about radiation matters. I'd like to offer my 2c here. 

We who do RP daily appreciate the nature of the risks associated with our
mode of making a living. It is difficult for a public that avidly buys
powerball tickets to appreciate how vanishingly small the actual risk is, if
it is there at all (hormesis?). Someone wins the Powerball, right? Someone
will get cancer, then.  Never mind the hundreds of millions of non-winning
tickets. Airline crash statistics are fairly common knowledge, but some
people still refuse to fly. Talking about "low risk" just doesnt work,
unless it is put in an understandable context, for instance, relating dose
from clinical x-rays or bannanas or lantern mantles. (or the greater risk of
risk of car accidents or falling off a ladder). But that's Math and some
peoples eyes glaze over. Someone wins the Powerball, airpplanes crash, and
nuc plants melt down, or so the logic goes.

Which brings me to my next point. The folks we talk to need an appreciation
of the fact that radiation risk is related to dose somehow. I have some
trouble coming up with an explanation suitable for the layman (layperson?)
with no technical or scientific background or inclination. Perhaps the best
way to communicate the dose dependence of risk is to use an everyday
analogy, say smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol. Can smoking one ciggy
cause lung cancer? Can drinking one beer cause liver failure? I suppose it's
possible but the likelihood is small. Perhaps smoking a single cigarette can
be analagous to recieving an occupational millirem. Obviously, this analogy
is fraught with peril if used in any sort of scientific or peer-reviewed
context, but it may illustrate this key concept somewhat for the technically
challenged.

It is important, IMO to remove the Black or White oversimplification that
seems to increasingly prevail and is so useful for the hypemongers. (Is
there radiation or isnt there? If there is it is obviously bad and must be
eliminated, look how many people died at Chernobyl.)  The main PR challenge
is to present a complicated, technical subject in simple terms anyone can
relate to. 

I could go on, but its back to work.

Charles Migliore (RRPT)
mglc98@nspco.com

 

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