[ RadSafe ] Your letter of Jan. 6

Thu Jan 19 09:56:23 CST 2006

You are quite correct Bernie, we need to communicate with the public on a 
massive scale. This kind of a study won't influence public understanding of 
or support for a resumption of nuclear construction or development of 
advanced fuel cycles in the U.S. because it won't have widespread 
distribution. People aren't that interested if it doesn't make headlines. It 
might influence the right policy maker if you can put it in one page, or the 
right investor if you can get it published in Fortune. 

We have to reach tens of millions of people to have a measureable impact, 
and this won't do it. 

Denis 

Bernard Cohen writes: 

>    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/ 
>> 
>> 