Radiation and the community....

One of the best tools for explaining radiation exposures and risk to our own staff was prepared secondary to the damage at Fukushima and although not inclusive, provides a level of perspective for folks.


There had been a great deal of opinions related to the Fukushima incident in the couple of months following the earthquake and tsunami. Like many folks, I had many questions. Unlike many, I could read the information coming from the blogosphere with a skeptical eye and a little more knowledge than the average citizen as a submarine corpsman (read that as health physics technician).

I dislike "worst case scenario" writing without identifying the story as such. The folks who articulated some facts and then extend the very loose logic into and end of the world story. I recently read a post by a physician who correctly stated that the International Commission on Radiation Protection determined that any radiation exposure can be dangerous. She then suggested (in very strong language) that the incidence of cancers will significantly increase. I think she is wrong to come to a conclusion without providing the reader good data (at least).

Many of the science writers for a wide variety on online do not put information in perspective for the reader. A person who is reading a great deal about the incident because they don't know, sees the headline "Radiation detected is 150 mSieverts...". They ask themselves, Is that a big number or a little number? And read the context.. The writer and the reader without the understanding that important information is missing: The range of detection, was it "on contact", at two feet etc. The writer should offer perspective. The inverse square law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law) should be articulated to reader. "Double the distance and quarter the dose" would suffice to calm fears.

The Centers for Disease Control and Protections (CDC) has provided additional guidance for medical personnel, planners and the public (http://emergency.cdc.gov/radiation/). A great deal of this information and related activities will be of significant use to our public health colleagues who have not had exposure to the subjects. Those folks who are responsible for communities adjacent to the 104 nuclear power stations in the US are a bit better prepared since there are utility evaluations performed by FEMA every couple of years.

In any event, the district will continue to address radiation in concert with the other public health priorities.