[MbrExchange] Re: [ RadSafe ] Your letter of Jan. 6

[John Jacobus]

Ted,
I think you forget that the politics of victim
compensation is not based on science alone.  The
reality is that interest groups, e.g, Atomic Veterans,
Downwinders, etc., and Congress will respond.  That is
reality.

As for educating the public on the projected cancers
and deaths, I frequently deal with those issues when
people ask about medical exposures.  I have been doing
it for about 10 years.  I still get asked the same
questions.  If you expected to educate the public, you
need to be in it for the long haul.

--- Ted Rockwell <tedrock at starpower.net> wrote:

> Friends:
> 
> We cannot begin to convince the public so long as
> our actions belie our
> words.  For decades we have told the public that
> they have nothing to fear,
> while we insist that we cannot expect companies to
> build nuclear plants
> without being indemnified against an accident of
> unprecedented magnitude
> (exceeding all insurance resources), and practice
> mass evacuations from
> contamination beyond what is physically achievable,
> and pay lawyers millions
> to defend against harmless levels of radiation
> without being willing to tell
> people (and document it) that such levels ARE
> harmless.
> 
> We first have to bring our actions and our
> regulations into line with the
> scientific data.  We have computer programs that
> "predict" thousands of
> deaths from a nuclear plant casualty.  We have never
> repudiated these
> programs as predictors of death.  After we've done
> so, then we have to tell
> people that the data show that the worst realistic
> casualty cannot kill more
> than few if any people (we now refuse to talk about
> the casualty, arguing
> that this will scare people.  Our unwillingness to
> talk about it REALLY
> scares them.)
> 
> The Japanese spent hundreds of millions of dollars
> to compensate 600 members
> of the public who were "exposed to radiation in
> Japan's worst nuclear
> accident."  We do the same with "fallout victims"
> and nuclear workers who
> have received harmless levels of radiation.  The
> Japanese spent a year
> "reconsidering their commitment to nuclear power, in
> view of this nuclear
> incident."
> 
> We don't need a new PR spin.  We need to straighten
> out our own house first.
> That is the purpose of the ANS Realism Project and a
> similar project now
> under way at WNA.
> 
> Ted Rockwell
> 
> 
> On 1/19/06 10:56 AM, "Denis Beller"
> <beller at Egr.UNLV.EDU> wrote:
> 
> > 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 
=== message truncated ===


+++++++++++++++++++
"Never write when you can talk. Never talk when you can nod. And never put anything in an email."  - Eliot Spitzer, New York state attorney general

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com