🚀 go-pugleaf

kym@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) writes:
>
>Firstly, a little caution. When someone representing the nuclear industry 
>gets up and tries to downplay the dangerousness of a particular material, or
>confuse -- perhaps to the minds of some _deliberately_ confuse -- danger 
>with risk, etc, then they will be doing their industry (yet another in a 
>long line of) dis-services. (*)

 This is true, but it goes both ways because words like "toxicity" 
 have different meanings to a lay and technical audience.  Further, 
 many people are completely unaware of what risks they are exposed 
 to daily since they can't read the code on those cute signs they 
 put on trucks, so they don't have a ready comparison point for the 
 magnitude of any particular risk.  

>Overall, the argument -- as posted -- seems to be attempting to shift from 
>the topic of "how dangerous is X" (aka "danger" and how likely something
>is to kill once someone is exposed to it) to one of how "likely X is to kill 
>you" (aka "risk", and related to how likely someone "normally" would be
>to be exposed to a danger).
>
>The distinction between risk and danger is only subtle if someone moves their 
>hands rather quickly.

 I disagree on that distinction, because not everyone would make the 
 same definition.  They could even reverse the two: "what is the risk 
 if exposed to X" and "what is the danger that X might kill me".  Very
 vague words that require careful and consistent use in any discussion. 
 I like your definition, but it may not be shared by everyone. 

>But, remember (*).  It certainly is true that radionuclides don't kill as 
>_quickly_ as, say, your average toxin (leaving aside toxin vs toxicant). 
>But -- we knew that to start with. 

 We know that, but the general public may not realize that when they 
 hear someone say "plutonium is extremely toxic".  Many, and I will 
 bet it includes most journalists, would think that means it will 
 kill you as quickly (and maybe by the same kind of exposure) as that 
 poor chemist who was killed by a compound of mercury.  

 The third dimension you discuss quite well in the rest of your 
 article, time, was not included in your danger/risk breakdown 
 up above.  Yet we know that people view sudden death in plane 
 crashes as more 'dangerous' than the far-off risk of lung cancer 
 from smoking even if they know the danger of being in a plane 
 crash and the danger of having lung cancer.  You see that all the 
 time in airport terminals as people smoke heavily to deal with 
 their fear of flying. 

 Thus terms like toxicity, usually associated with poisons that 
 will kill you quickly, carry as much baggage into such discussions 
 as terms like danger and risk.  The fourth dimension, the means 
 by which you are exposed (inhalation, ingestion, external) is 
 seldom brought up at all in public discussions. 

>So, comparing how lethal a substance is within 24 hrs (say) -- the
>so-called "chemical toxicity of radionuclides" --  will trivially favour some 
>arguments. But death over the 24 hr line has been known to happen -- and many
>people don't ignore it. ;-)

 But people usually don't quote those exposure levels in the public 
 discussion of plutonium "toxicity".  What is the documented case of 
 a death from Pu exposure in that time period?  Or was it some other 
 radiochemical? 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_ 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       | desired to this or any address 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  | that resolves to my account 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    | for any reason at any time.