Re: [Phys-l] Fact Sheet on the Three Mile Island Accident

[Hugh Haskell <hhaskell@mindspring.com>]

At 14:21 -0400 04/10/2009, Stefan Jeglinski wrote:
> One of the problems I've had with spin, from the opposite point of
> view, is the tendency of reporters, scientific and otherwise, to
> emphasize, for example, a "100% increase in the risk," which to most
> people sounds very significant, when in fact the incidence is not
> significant at all, to rational observers.
>
> 1 in 10,000 vs 2 in 10,000 is a 100% increase in the risk, but most
> will consider either to be insignificant, relatively speaking.

I agree with you 100% on this. It drives me up the wall as well. 
However, it is often true that a small per capita risk can have a 
significant impact on a large population. Getting in a fatal car 
accident, on a per passenger mile basis, is almost negligibly small, 
but we have around 40,000 highway fatalities a year, so the 
population size is a factor in this calculation. Also, this is a risk 
that people have clearly accepted (as a polity, if not individually). 
Similarly with things like x-rays. Very few people get x-rays without 
their permission or at least the permission of a responsible 
guardian. Exposure to nuclear fallout or radioactive leakage from a 
power plant (or from a coal plant) is not voluntary, and the people 
exposed often have very little to say in whether they will be exposed 
or not (simply moving away from the potentially affected area is not 
often an option). So what might be considered a very small risk to an 
individual could become a significant public health issue if the 
population impacted is large enough, or if it is concentrated in ways 
that indicate a clear bias (like hosting toxic waste dumps in 
minority neighborhoods, or ignoring the difference in effect on 
different segments of the population--women, children, poor people, 
etc.).

> I'm genuinely curious, not trying to imply that cancer is not a
> serious concern, but I am trying to get some perspective... what are
> Steve Wing's quantitative predictions? That is, what is his
> definition of significant? Or is the use of the word "significant"
> yours alone here?
That word is mine. I haven't talked with Steve about that particular 
issue (In fact I haven't talked to him at all for a couple of years). 
The point is that he has evidence that the emissions were 
considerably more than what has been made public, either because the 
NRC is sitting on the data or because those who were making the 
measurements didn't do it right, or the pre-placed radiation 
detectors they relied upon were not in the right places, or some 
combination of the above. As you note, the actual probability of the 
cancers was increased by a rather small number (more stuff that I 
can't get to because it's been packed away until after I move), but 
when applied to the population at risk around the TMI site, it adds 
up to a number that gives one pause. We're not talking about an extra 
thousand people dying, but probably more like around 50, over a span 
of 30-40 years. It's not a huge number, but it's people who didn't 
know they were buying into that risk, and probably wouldn't have had 
they had the option.

Normally, people who die or are injured as a result of the neglect or 
incompetence of another and which the victim is not complicit in are 
entitled to some redress. In this case they are being denied access 
to that redress because they have been denied access to the data that 
might enable them to seek it. I'm not saying that everyone who dies 
of cancer within 20 miles of a nuclear power plant, or anyone who 
dies of cancer who lived under the plume of the fallout from the 
Nevada atomic tests (which includes to more or less extent every 
state in the nation, with the possible exception of Hawaii, but is 
mostly concentrated in a sector radiating away from the site toward, 
and covering most of New England, and the Northern Midwest--See, 
"Under the Cloud: The Decades of Nuclear Testing," by Richard L. 
Miller, Two-Sixty Press, 1991). But, using John Gofman's methodology, 
it is possible to estimate the probability that any cancer is 
radiation-induced and, historically, that information has been used 
in court cases with some success, if the probability is high enough 
(which, obviously, varies from court to court).

Doing risky things, and sometimes living with known risks is part of 
being human. There is no such thing as perfect safety, but if we are 
going to put someone at risk of what is by all assessment a pretty 
miserable way to die, and not a particularly great way to live, at 
the very least we owe them the courtesy of getting their informed 
consent.

Hugh

--
Hugh Haskell
mailto:hugh@ieer.org
mailto:hhaskell@mindspring,.com

So-called "global warming" is just a secret ploy by wacko 
tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and 
water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 
21st-century industries, and make our cities safer. Don't let them 
get away with it!!

					Chip Giller, Founder, Grist.org