AW: [ RadSafe ] Jeff Purcell Cornell Article ..

Thu Apr 26 15:25:01 CDT 2007

Mike, 

Gratulations about your success at an obviously extremely low level of
distribution. What has been discussed here on RADSAFE is quite different -
nationwide impact. Your success which you yourself belittle concerning the
future is no sound basis for the future supply of electric energy.

This message will be subject to censorship by the listowner. It has been
sent at 22:23 Middle European Summer Time. 

Best regards, 

Franz  

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag
von Brennan, Mike (DOH)
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. April 2007 18:31
An: radsafelist
Betreff: RE: [ RadSafe ] Jeff Purcell Cornell Article ..

I think it can be worthwhile to contact the reporter (at least in a regular
paper, I am not so sure about a college paper) and discuss the article with
them.  Often they have little knowledge about the subject and take what the
"expert" says at face value.  I think a reasonable goal for people in
radiation protection is to be the default expert for at least one reporter.

As an example, several weeks ago there was an article in one of our daily
papers about a plutonium power source the CIA lost in a glacier in the
Himalayas in the 1960s.  There were several quoted statements from "experts"
that undoubtedly seemed reasonable to the uninformed, but that were
questionable (or clearly wrong) to someone who knew something about rad.  

I asked the lab that (supposedly) did the analysis for more detailed
information and I contacted the reporter.  She was receptive to discussing
the details and where there might be misleading statements.  She did not
seem to be amused when I demonstrated, using the lab results, that the
sample taken was not positive for plutonium, but that the guy from the lab
had crafted a statement that made her think there was plutonium, without
actually lying in a way that would get him in trouble in court.  She did not
seem favorably disposed that he had manipulated her into printing something
that supported his cause but that he knew to be not true.  

I am hoping that the next time she has a story that involves radiation she
will give me a call, rather than the lawyer-activist "expert" who didn't
quite lie to her last time.  We will see. 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of Sandy Perle
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 7:23 AM
To: 'Franz Schönhofer'; 'Roger Helbig'; 'radsafelist'
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Jeff Purcell Cornell Article ..

I'll agree and disagree with Franz's comments. 

*         I agree with the comment that "To complain about those obvious
nonsensical news on mass media is in my opinion not enough."

*         I agree with the comment "but it might be necessary that
electricity supply would have to break down in order to demonstrate the
dependency on electricity."

*         I disagree with the comment that "Political considerations are
opposed to such activities in most countries and in my own country (Austria)
the relevant webpage of my former Ministry deals with the "anti-nuclear
politics of Austria". 

Where there has been any involvement in US Govt. websites, most notably NRC,
DOE, etc., there is positive information provided on nuclear energy. In
France and many other countries the governments do post pro-nuclear
information. So it's not all negative.

Once can debate what should be scanned from the media and then provided to a
professional forum. Here in the USA we have freedom of the press and the
right to free speech. That doesn't mean that all speech is legitimate,
doesn't mean that it's accurate, honest or with integrity. Some, a very few
individuals who I can count on less than the fingers on one hand, have
questioned why some of my postings include articles that are anti-nuclear or
do not include all the facts as they truly are. The point has been and
remains, I post what the media posts and what the public is "exposed" to ...
pun intended. We in the industry to better educate the public have to
understand what the public is being told and determine what they believe in
order to provide the facts and then let the public decide. The nuclear
option while mostly a political debate is also one that the public has a
large stake in and they do have clout when it does come to decision making. 

I disagree with the statement

*         "I can only say that any "education of the public" could only
occur by the government.

It is well known that the public generally does not trust government or the
power companies either. Scientists aren't believed because for every
scientist who states a pro-nuclear view, there is one or two that directly
oppose that view. Imagine, if the scientific community can not agree on the
basis of LNT, for how many decades, what do you think the public believes?
Look at the scandals in Japan for instance, regarding the lies told to the
public about the safety of their nuclear plants. Do you think that the
anti-nuclear entities would have any problems debating their government when
it comes to attacking nuclear power?

In summary, the public has the right to read what they read. The press in
this country is free. Professional organizations have the right and duty to
provide accurate information. In the end, the public needs to hear all sides
of an issue and then they need to form a decision, an opinion, based on the
best information available. Nobody is going to force a decision either pro
or anti down the throats of an educated public.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Sandy Perle 

Senior Vice President, Technical Operations 

Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 

2652 McGaw Avenue

Irvine, CA 92614

Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 

Tel: (949) 419-1000 Extension 2306

Fax:(949) 296-1144

Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ 

Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ 

-----Original Message-----
>From Franz Schönhofer
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 3:36 PM

To complain about those obvious nonsensical news on massmedia is in my

opinion not enough. To use the ridiculous term of "educating the public",

preferably by sending answers to papers etc. is of no use." 

Having been for an unfortunate and unsatisfying five-years period a

"regulator" in Austria and having been involved actually decades before that

in the debate on nuclear power in Austria I can only say that any "education

of the public" could only occur by the government. Political considerations

are opposed to such activities in most countries and in my own country

(Austria) the relevant webpage of my former Ministry deals with the

"anti-nuclear politics of Austria". Sorry to say, but it might be necessary

that electricity supply would have to break down in order to demonstrate the

dependency on electricity - sorry, not correct, this would be reported in

the news media as blackmail of the Nuclear Lobby. 

_______________________________________________
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/
_______________________________________________
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/