Dear Professor Bumjin Jeong, Department of Nuclear Engineering, Kyunghee University

Hello Professor Jeong. Didn't the whole country come to Corona 19 in a mess? I heard that the campus, which should have been filled with the freshness of freshmen by now, has been quiet as the start of the course was postponed. It is an online lecture in an unprecedented situation.

My name is SBS Kang Cheong-wan. We first reported on the radon bed incident last year. A few days ago, I read the professor's <Lesson of the Radon Bed Event Ended in Fire Case> column published in the Chosun Ilbo on April 7. It is this column that greets you through the ground like this.

Through the column, I felt the professor's sad heart. 'The whole country was noisy due to the radon bed incident two years ago, but it was ended in vain by prosecution.' Based on when the Nuclear Safety Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Yuan Committee) slept on the bed and slept for 24 hours, the amount of exposure was miscalculated, and the civic groups that raised the issue remain silent, and the Yuan Committee judged such 'unscientific'. He pointed out that the reason was because of the regime that is aiming for the greatest goal on the earth.

However, after reading the column, I was seated in front of a laptop with a lot of concerns. As a reporter who is only a bachelor from the department of literature, so is the logical development that is difficult to dare to follow, because the facts were completely different in some places. Even though there are many parts that rely on subjectivity, it was difficult to pass by considering that the column is not a personal blog, but a column filled with strong opinions. I was worried that the wrong facts would mislead and deceive the public, and I was also worried about who might be the fame of a professor who is a nuclear power expert. Personally, there may be a way to solve the misunderstanding of the professor, but the article was written in the form of a public letter considering the possibility that the citizens who saw the column received the wrong information. I would like to thank you in advance for your greetings in writing.

● Prosecutor's prosecution = "No problem"?

First of all, the initiation of the column and the electrification of the prosecutor, 'The prosecution's decision to prosecute' does not mean 'the radon bed has no problem'. The prosecution has decided that the radon bed couldn't be punished for someone, so it wasn't going to be put on trial, and that doesn't mean it's safe and there's nothing wrong. The prosecution's prosecution is simply a part of the judicial process, and has nothing to do with the nature of the situation.

Let's take an example. If you talk about the nature of the radon bed in a very simple sentence, it is true that 'radon came out of bed'. The fact that 'radon came out of bed' is an objectively verifiable scientific fact, and it is not a proposition that the prosecution investigation should conclude. I'll ask the professor who is a scientist. Do you ever say, "This principle is the result of prosecution investigations" while teaching students the scientific principles of nuclear safety and heat transfer, which is your research field?

From the beginning, this was not a matter of going to criminal punishment. Last year, I had a phone call with a prosecution official investigating a radon bed incident. Then my first question was "Why are you investigating this?" It was. Of course, from the perspective of the prosecution, it was an incident that attracted public attention, and there was an inevitable aspect of the investigation due to complaints and complaints by environmental civic groups. However, from the very beginning, I have been arguing that this is not a case that will not be misled by an investigation. As a person who has covered this situation from the very beginning and thinks that you know the most, Radon Bed was well aware that no one was willful. It wasn't illegal at the time to use monazite as a causative agent in bed. In other words, the legislation was incomplete, and the law was revised to prevent Monazite from being used for household items such as beds after the report. Of course, the prosecution's indictment was also expected. (Personally, I don't think that 'excessive judicial', which attempts to cover all the cases with a prosecution investigation, is never desirable.)

Let's also look at the hazards of the human body. The saying that the prosecution's prosecution for 'pulmonary cancer outbreak and causality is not clear' does not mean 'radon bed does not cause lung cancer'. To be precise, it is close to “It is difficult now to clearly demonstrate the causal relationship with lung cancer. ” If you look at page 2 of the press release issued by the prosecutors' case, “It is admitted that radon is a trigger for lung cancer, but it is not lung cancer. " There are no studies worldwide that have been proven to be associated with other diseases (thyroid cancer, skin disease, etc.) . " It's true that radon causes lung cancer without knowing other diseases.

However, when it comes to legal causality, the story is different. In 2011, smokers with lung cancer filed a claim against the tobacco company and then lost to the Supreme Court. Cigarettes may be the cause of lung cancer, but causality was not recognized because it was difficult to scientifically prove that cigarettes are the only cause of lung cancer. No one would think of this ruling as saying, "Oh, three packs of cigarettes a day don't cause lung cancer." (The actual prosecution also cited the case of the above-mentioned tobacco litigation in the press release.) According to the logic of the column written by the professor, government or medical claims that 'tobacco is harmful' are both fiction and happening.

It is common knowledge even for small children to know that cigarettes cause lung cancer. The same goes for radon. The professor is also familiar. (If you aren't sure, you may want to look up an article I've written in the past, or ask your acquaintances around you.) However, legally causality is a different level of discussion, and it's never a conclusion that there are no problems. Just as doctors don't go to court and make final decisions when they study the mechanisms of the development of various diseases. Therefore, the logic that the prosecution's decision to prosecute is the 'empty conclusion' of the radon bed situation is regrettable, but it is a bit of a story. It wasn't because it wasn't a matter of investigation from the beginning.
● '24 hours in your nose? ' You were wrong.

Many of the facts you had on the grounds of your claim are unfortunate, but most of the facts are wrong. First of all, while pointing out the non-scientific nature of the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission, it is not at all true that 'we calculated the exposure when we slept 24 hours asleep in a bed without a sheet'. I am wondering where it came from.

When looking at the data at that time, the Wonyuan calculated the amount of exposure by considering the prone position, the reclined position, the distance between the respirator and the bed, 5-10 cm, not the `` nose position ''. The committee composed of experts, such as nuclear power experts and doctors, made various scenarios to calculate exposure, and calculated very conservatively considering various variables such as the average sleep time, room size, and distance from the respiratory system. is. This is true if you look for it a little. (In relation to this, the ROK submitted a press release on the 7th. It is unusual for a government agency to issue a press release in the external contribution column.)

It is also not true that the civic activist who had raised the radon bed issue was silent. You may not have reported the newspaper your professor contributed to the column, but it's also a bit of a search on the Internet. At that time, many activists, including the Environmental Citizens Health Center, criticized the prosecution's prosecution as a hasty conclusion. Of course, personally, I don't think the reaction of civic groups matters much. As I emphasized before, prosecution investigation is not the essence of the matter.

Rather, I wonder what the grounds for the professor's claim that the claim was found to be groundless. I have already said that the prosecution's prosecution does not judge the authenticity of the facts. If you really turned out to be innocent as the professor said, you will have to apologize and seek faults from me, not from civic groups. Moreover, shouldn't the government that suffered the apologize even apologize to the public?

In fact, from the previous year, the story of 'I will pay damages to the media, government, and civic groups who reported on the radon bed' has been aroused. Perhaps it's a story from a bed company lawyer. However, there hasn't been a single case yet. It may sound a bit cheeky, but I'm in the position to bet any lawsuit. Because we are confident enough about our coverage and coverage. In fact, reporters (although not all of them) tend to cover more than you think. When reporting a large wave, prepare for a number of possibilities, including legal issues. I wasn't exaggerating the dangers because I was blinded by the scoop, but rather, I tried to be as modest as possible. If it is cleared by law, I think this would be less.

● The radon bed is because of the 'pre-displacement regime'.

Eventually, it was regrettable to go to the point that 'this regime has made' Tal Nuclear Power Plant 'the biggest goal on the ground, and that the government agency, Won-Yang, would have no choice but to satisfy its taste.' I understand it by saying that the radon bed was forced to be created because of the comfort that fits the tastes of the government after the logical flow. What is the relationship between 'Radon Bed' and 'De-wonjeon'? Is it the logic that a radon bed can provoke the public's fear and rejection of radioactivity, and that can help with the government's policy of post-discharge? If so, it is an excessive logical leap.

Rather, from the government's point of view, it is more common sense inference that lifestyle issues such as radon beds cannot be as sweet. This is especially true considering the criticism of the government over the previous year's bed collection and storage, damage compensation and countermeasures. I have also criticized the government and the Yuan Higher than anyone else. I don't admit the government's infallibility, but I have learned that it is a law to have reasonable grounds for criticism. Maybe the SBS was afraid of SBS and manipulated the results?

On the one hand, I think that this is not what the professor eventually wanted to say. I have seen some media reports that the related industries have shrunk and the space for majors has narrowed due to the post-disposal policy. I think the professor will be very upset. I also personally do not agree 100% with the current regime's post-discharge policy. Nevertheless, it is an excessive leap to say that the bed case is 'political and political' by linking it to the post-discharge policy. This is because he has already decided on the conclusion that it is because of the 'pre-discharge' and ignored or distorted the facts of the intermediate process.

It's been two years, but the report started when I was reporting on radon-related planning, and I heard from a measurement company official that 'radon came out of bed'. Based on this, the case was traced back to secure the case, and over two months, experts, professional organizations, and the bed industry were verified. Even though the fortress is very ugly, I understand it, but it wasn't covered by any huge conspiracy or political intentions, and it wasn't worth it. Users are still complaining about side effects that they may not know, and related studies are underway. I think you will know if you look for it.

● 'Stool' that says there is no problem if you put a pillow on a sheet

The essence of the radon bed situation is that 'an unwanted substance has entered the bed, and the substance is likely to cause health to the human body'. And if there is any possibility of harming people's health, it is the job of the media to inform the people. Saying that it's no problem since you put a pillow on a sheet is nothing more than a sophistication that misleads the essence of the incident. The product didn't even have a notice saying 'Be sure to close the sheet because radon comes out'.

Let's take a slightly rough example. The amount of lethality, the poisonous poison, is about 0.15 ~ 0.3g per adult. To this end, adding 0.001 g of cyanide, which is not enough, is not allowed to be added if it is not eaten. Unless it is absolutely necessary for a taste or preservative effect. Similarly, monazite, which produces radon, was a material that did not need to be put in the bed. At the time, it was added that the anion effect appeared, but the anion was also not scientifically verified. If you know it late, it is reasonable to ban it and collect the product. (You can ask how the direct comparison between blue-green and radon is possible, but radon has also proved dangerous enough to be called a "silent killer.")

The purpose of the report was to inform the public of this fact, not to identify the person responsible and punish them. If any risk is revealed through scientific verification procedures, it is right to give consumers the right to choose and to call attention to producers. For this, I studied and covered hard so that there was no mistake.

As an aside, I think the newspaper that contributed the column is perfect. When it was noisy due to the radon bed for a long time last year, the newspaper reported malicious reports that 'there was no problem, but only a troubled company was ruined.' I lowered my tail. 'The external contribution column may be different from the editing direction of this paper', but I also want to know what I wanted to say with the column.

Ah, in a word, many media have reported this since the prosecution's decision to prosecute earlier this year. Of course, the newspaper with the column may have been overlooked because it did not report properly, but it seems a bit cryptic to say 'I almost did not know because it was not properly reported in the press'. I was wondering why this column came out three months after the indictment, but I think watching our news is a good alternative. SBS News reported the issue in detail in the main news earlier this year, over two minutes in two reports.

I will do my best to fulfill the duties of the media in the future. I hope you will also get rid of the misunderstanding. I hope that you are careful with your health and have peace. Thank you.

SBS Kang Chung-wan reporter.