I use the same analogy during rad training. I don't think it's
necessarily for the "technically challenged" either. It's one of
the few ways to compare apples to apples that I've been able to come up
with. Aren't we really faced with the same sort of risk with both.
What's the cancer risk from smoking one cigarette? Would a reasonable
person extrapolate a lifetime two-pack a day smoker's cancer risk quantitatively
to say one cigarette a year?
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
>
>
>