[ RadSafe ] Your letter of Jan. 6

[Bernard Cohen]

    I don't see why money is needed to make such a study, I and many 
other scientists would voluntarily provide all the info that would be 
requested. What we need is experts in communicating with the public.
    Incidently, I would be happy to send hard copy reprints of the two 
papers mentioned in my original message to anyone interested.

mpatterson at canberra.com wrote:

>
> Bernard,
>
> As an educator you are probably one of the best people to help educate 
> the public on this type of a topic.  I think a comparison to risks 
> associated with other power generation technologies might help the 
> public process and comprehend the information.  Consider for example 
> the risk of having a coal mining operation in an area.  How many 
> additional deaths is it likely to cause per year?  How many coal mines 
> would it take to keep an equivalent power output to the nuclear power 
> output?  
>
> This seems like a study that our government should fund.   I say this 
> because these types of studies and public relations projects are 
> funded by the governments in other industrial countries such as Japan 
> and France.  I realize that there are competing industries that might 
> try to block such a study in the US.  If this is the case then perhaps 
> EPRI or another industrial group should fund.  If the study was worded 
> properly in a more global context then perhaps the IAEA or the UN 
> could fund it.  I think the study will be better received by the 
> public if it is done by a University or a team of Universities.  
>
> Once the study has been completed the result would need to be 
> synthesized into easy to understand graphics, pamphlets and 
> presentation. This type of information could then be given to high 
> schools and universities as "free" educational materials.   Students 
> have open minds and represent the future.  This information could and 
> should also be place on one or more websites.  
>
> Just some thoughts I had when I read your note below.   I certainly 
> agree with all of you that public perception and understanding is key 
> to moving forward with nuclear energy.
>
> - Sincerely,
> Melissa Patterson
> In Vivo Systems Product Manager
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 	Bernard Cohen <blc+ at pitt.edu>
> Sent by: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
>
> 01/18/2006 10:32 AM
>
> 	       
>         To:        wilson at physics.harvard.edu, 
> mbrexchange at list.ans.org, cstarr at epri.com, Ted Rockwell 
> <tedrock at starpower.net>, RadiatSafety <radsafe at radlab.nl>
>         cc:        
>         Subject:        [ RadSafe ] Your letter of Jan. 6
>
>
>
>
>     I am writing in response to your letter of Jan. 6 bemoaning the fact
> that theYucca Mountain repository seems to be going nowhere, summarized
> in your sentences "Maybe the repository will be finished bo 2030. Maybe
> not."
>    I believe it is extremely important to educate the public to
> understand that buried radioactive waste is not an important potential
> threat to human health. I don't think the public can ever understand or
> become comfortable with the Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) approach
> used by DOE; It is vulnerable to criticism on many points and the
> critics are only too happy to take advantage of this, and the public
> cannot judge between "experts". I have long advocated doing a PRA for an
> average U.S. location (which I have shown is very easy to do and to be
> understood by the public, and which comes out quite acceptable), and  
> relying on the public to believe that the experts can choose a site at
> least as good as an average site. My most recent presentation of this
> viewpoint is published in "Probabilistc risk analysis for a high level
> waste repository", Risk Analysis 23:909-915;2003
>     An improved approach to achieving public understanding was recently
> published in my paper  "Understanding the toxicity of buried radioactive
> waste and its impact", Health Phys 89;355-358;2005. It shows in easily
> understandable fashion that the buried waste from a continuous nuclear
> power program operating over thousands of years will cause about 1.0
> deaths per year in U.S. based on assuming LNT and no improvement in
> cancer cure rates.
>    If someone would figure out how to present these ideas to the mass
> public audience, I think it would do a lot of good. Any advice on how I
> might help in this would be greatly appreciated.
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and 
> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>
>