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

[John Jacobus]

Ted,
I would say that is a noble endeavor, but I again say
that our rules and regulations are not always based on
physical realities.  

As I see it, the majority of Americans do favor
nuclear power for many assorted reasons, e.g., no
green-house gases, energy independance, comparable
costs, etc.  Those are the issues we should be
"pushing."  It is just a matter of time before new
plants are built.  The anti-nuclear people will still
be among us, and will have to accept the future.  

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

> John:
> 
> If the Realism Project achieved its goal of bringing
> our rules and practices
> into line with physical realities, we would be in a
> much more tenable
> position, whether or not a single member of the
> public changed his/her
> position.
> 
> And, of course, it would then be easier to convert
> anti-nukes, over whatever
> length of time it took, because we would no longer
> be talking with forked
> tongue.
> 
> Ted Rockwell
> 
> 
> On 1/20/06 10:53 AM, "John Jacobus"
> <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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
> 
=== 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