Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FSSF

(17 posts)
7. ...
Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:34 AM
Jan 2012

"The methodological difficulties inherent in low-dose epidemiological studies suggest that it is unlikely that we will be able to directly and precisely quantify cancer risks in human populations at doses much below 10 mSv. Our inability to quantify such risks does not, however, imply that the corresponding societal risks are necessarily negligible; a very small risk, if applied to a large number of individuals, can result in a significant public health problem."

Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: Assessing what we really know

Also comparing voluntary (smoking, sun exposure) and involuntary (nuclear accidents) risks is a good way to lose credibility.

"The classic example of a comparison that violates these distinctions is to tell people at a public meeting that their risk from air toxic X is lower than the risk they took when they drove their cars to the meeting or when they enjoyed a cigarette during a break. Unless there is already a high level of trust between the speaker and the audience, this sort of comparison is almost guaranteed to provoke outrage because it seems to make the following claim:

Since the risk of emissions of air toxic X is less than that of driving or smoking, two conclusions follow: (a) the risk of emissions of air toxic X must logically be more acceptable, and (b) people who drive or smoke have surrendered their right to object to the plant’s emission of air toxic X.

This is a false argument, based on a flawed premise. To seem to be advancing such a claim is to invite resentment from your audience."

Risk Communication, Risk Statistics, and Risk Comparisons: A Manual for Plant Managers

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Report: Japan kept secret...»Reply #7