[ RadSafe ] RE: The hot and cold of history & journalistic credibility

Wed Feb 7 16:07:37 CST 2007

Zero risk is impossible in most things in life.  Only
a few things are 100% certain - death and taxes!

Has anyone ever heard of a zero-risk coal mine?  A
zero-risk natural gas pipeline?  Even hydroelectric
dams, as wonderful and emissions-free as they are,
occasionally have accidents.  

I wish it were zero-risk when I climb in my car and go
driving, but it just simply isn't.  No matter what
vehicle one chooses to drive, there's always a risk of
traffic accident.

Some people actively delight in risk when there's a
possibility of a "win" - think about the behavior of
gamblers or of speculative investors such as those in
the options or commodities markets.

There are people who specialize in studying the
"expectation value" of a risk.  Normally, this is in
the financial markets, but a simple example can be
made with counting cards in blackjack [which is
usually not shuffled every round].  The odds in
blackjack normally favor the casino, but if a player
keeps track of the cards using a tally system, there
are times when the odds favor the player - and the
player might put out a $50 bet rather than the usual
$5.  For the card-counting gambler, the "expectation
value" is sometimes shifted from the usual negative
(casino more likely to win) to a slight positive.   

It's impossible to live in a zero-risk society.  If
there is zero risk, there is zero "expectation value."
 Zero-risk basically implies doing nothing, which is
actually an action (that has really bad consequences).
 There's an extreme risk to health if someone doesn't
get out of bed.  If no-one spends money, the economy
grinds to a halt.

It *is* possible to assess the various risks of
different choices (about anything - not just energy)
and to choose the options that pose lower risks of
losses and higher chances of rewards.

A simple example is investment in education.  If
society *doesn't* want to run the "risk" of spending
money, school funding and library hours can be cut. 
Class size can be increased from, say, 26
students/teacher to, let's say 31 or 32.  I've seen
all these things happen - when I was in school in
California during the late 1970s.  At first, cutting
back on education seems like a rewarding option,
because a lot of money is saved!  After a few years,
though, there's a very substantial downside risk to
that choice, as the result is eventually a
less-well-educated populace who won't fit so well into
a tech. economy.  

A society that is unwilling to rationally assess risks
(and go with the ~relatively low-risk/high-reward
scenarios) is a society that will choose the "lowest
risk/low investment/low reward" path.  It will, over
time, neglect its infrastructure and its schools.  The
society that tries to avoid risk and investment will
eventually "grind down" over time through lack of
investment.

Turning back to the issue at hand, California
basically tried during the 1980s-1990s to go with the
_perceived_ "low risk/low investment" path. 
California built a great many rather inexpensive (low
capital investment) gas-fired power plants.  Probably
correctly, California avoided coal.  [California
already has substantial aiur quality problems]. 
Californians _perceived_ the risk of natural gas to be
lower than that of nuclear energy.  Also, the
investment costs were definitely lower.  The choice
worked fine....until natural gas supplies became
constrained and the price of natural gas went up!  

Interestingly, though, I'm not aware that the coal or
natural gas industries have specialists in
"probabilistic risk assessment."  It seems that the
nuclear industry is more aware of evaluating risk than
its competitors - although they have risks, too.  They
just don't meassure their risks as carefully.  

Just about every option in personal life or in
politics has some sort of risk.  Society will do best
when its leaders and members understand the odds (as
best as possible) and the potential rewards or losses
of making different choices. 

~Ruth Sponsler

--- "Jean-Francois, Stephane"
<stephane_jeanfrancois at merck.com> wrote:

>  
> Politics is also a science. Even if all scientists
> would be for nuclear power, anyone capable of
> controlling a message and use emotion will win
> against cold factual science. As I told someone
> off-line,  a human being is not only made of 100%
> common sense. Experts in rad safety and nuclear
> field should try to understand this and adapt, as
> frustrating this can be. We live in a day and age
> where zero risk seems to be the standard philosophy.
> 
> Stéphane Jean-François, Eng., CHP
> Manager, Environmental and Health Physics services
> Merck Frosst Canada
> 514-428-8695
> 514-428-8670
> stephane_jeanfrancois at merck.com
> www.merckfrosst.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of
> Sandy Perle
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 6:28 PM
> To: 'ROGERS, Brent'; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: The hot and cold of history
> & journalistic credibility
> 
> Brent ... absolutely. The issue with not only
> nuclear power operation and
> maintenance, with respect to safety, as well as
> waste storage, has always
> been a political issue and not a scientific issue.
> Nuclear power generation
> in total has proven itself to be safe, economical
> and non-polluting. The
> issues that face the USA and other parts of the
> world if left to the
> scientists, would result in no issues. We can
> operate safely and we can
> store waste safely. The politicians need to look out
> for those who they
> represent and stop focusing on those who continually
> try to spin their
> stories that ultimately would have more of a
> detrimental effect on humanity,
> if the nuclear power option were eliminated.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Sandy
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: ROGERS, Brent
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:42 PM
>  
> The problems there aren't scientific, they're
> political.
> 
> Brent Rogers
> Leader Commercial Radiation Safety Group
> Australian Nuclear Science and Technology
> Organisation
> PMB 1, Menai NSW 2234
> T 61 2 9717 3251
> F 61 2 9717 9266
> M 0417 231 879
> E brent.rogers at ansto.gov.au 
> www.ansto.gov.au
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Notice:  This e-mail message, together with any
> attachments, contains
> information of Merck & Co., Inc. (One Merck Drive,
> Whitehouse Station,
> New Jersey, USA 08889), and/or its affiliates (which
> may be known
> outside the United States as Merck Frosst, Merck
> Sharp & Dohme or MSD
> and in Japan, as Banyu - direct contact information
> for affiliates is 
> available at
> http://www.merck.com/contact/contacts.html) that may
> be 
> confidential, proprietary copyrighted and/or legally
> privileged. It is 
> intended solely for the use of the individual or
> entity named on this 
> message. If you are not the intended recipient, and
> have received this 
> message in error, please notify us immediately by
> reply e-mail and then 
> delete it from your system.
> 
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> 

____________________________________________________________________________________
Never Miss an Email
Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile.  Get started!
http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail