[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Risk vs B+W
I like the idea of somehow relating risk from rad exposure to
risk from cigarette exposure. Obviously there are lots of
uncertainties in both, but for purposes of public presentations, it
wouldn't be that hard to come up with a "risk" from smoking one
cigarette and the same from one mrem. It seems to me that I've seen
something like this somewhere before, but can't remember where.
Craig Little
At 09:03 AM 8/17/99 -0500, you wrote:
>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
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Craig A. Little,
Ph.D.
+
+ Environmental Technology
Section
+
+ Life Sciences
Division
+
+ Oak Ridge National
Laboratory
+
+ 2597 B&3/4
Rd.
+
+ Grand Junction, CO
81503
+
+
+
+ 970/248-6201 (voice) 970/248-6207
(fax)
+
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Learn more about ORNL: Vist our websit at
http://www.ornl.gov/
You may also want to visit the DOE Pulse website at
http://www.ornl.gov/news/pulse/
- References:
- Risk vs B+W
- From: "Migliore, Charles W" <Charles.W.Migliore@nspco.com>