Re: Risk vs B+W

["Robert Denne" <rdenne@worldnet.att.net>]

I read a book that put all this in perspective.  The book was titled,
"Innumeracy" which is our nation's mathematical equivalent to illiteracy.
Very good book.  Forget the author.

Bob Denne
ATG Richland
----- Original Message -----
From: Migliore, Charles W <Charles.W.Migliore@nspco.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 7:03 AM
Subject: Risk vs B+W


> 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
>

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