[ RadSafe ] Mangano's New Study -the nuclear debate & public impact

Tue Jul 3 11:42:34 CDT 2007

Hi all,

When Sandy writes that "the majority [of anti activists].......do believe 
what they preach..",  I have to disagree based on the following caveat. Many 
of the lead anti-nuclear activist for decades, like Amory Lovins can't 
believe what they write and know what they are writing is false. One of my 
first assignments after beginning work as an Environmental Engineer out of 
grad school, was to write up detailed critique of a then recent paper by 
Amory Lovins making absurd claims about Cs-137 and Pu-239  releases and 
health threats from the nuclear fuel cycle.

I remember commenting in my critique that Lovins could not fabricate the 
very clever claims designed to deceive the reader unless he knew the facts 
of the situation. Their hidden or unstated assumptions were so vast [12 to 
20 orders of magnitude, or more,  on assumptions regarding dispersion of rad 
releases] that their claims were simply nothing other than crude lies.

The only way to react to the false claims by anti-nuclear activists is to 
embarass them by getting press coverage which reaches a WIDE audience and 
makes these critics look foolish or deceitful.

I have tried to do this to the extent I could,  over a period of many years, 
and outside the formal scope of my technical work as an environmental 
radiation specialist, and rad protection staffperson by doing things as just 
a few examples:

1) Writing an op-ed column criticizing Rosalie Bertell back in the late 
1970s published in the Providence Journal after she published a crude 
anti-nuclear op-ed

2) By writing an op-ed column published in the Boston Globe pointing out 
variations in background radiation exposure around Boston I had measured 
before the incident described below,  that far exceeded the trivial exposure 
from a stolen & missing 5 microCurie Co-57 check source missing when a tool 
box by a gamma camera medical instrument tech was found. This missing button 
source lead the Mass. State Police to cordon off a square mile of South 
Boston while they searched for the missing button source, claiming it could 
cause "radiation burns and radiation sickness" despite the exposure rate 
being far less than a microRad per hour at a few feet from this exempt 
button source.

3) By writing a published satire after the death of a windmill company 
president when the windmill threw a blade and he fell off the tower to his 
death about the "dreaded LOBA" [Loss of Blade Accident].  This satire was 
widely used by environmental educators in national meetings and distributed 
by the NRC in its newsletter.

4) By writing a widely published  satire about the "health hazards of 
strepdukakis" [during the 1988 general election] published in about 4 
newspapers, which seriously irritated the Energy Advisor to Governor Dukakis 
and led him to call me wanting to know if I was working for the Bush 
[senior] campaign. Not the case, but a funny suspicion.

5)  By writing a published satire [of sorts, published in Nuclear News as a 
Backscatter column, and in the HPS newsletter] annoucing the formation of 
the Scientists Committee Opposing Radiation Nescience [SCORN].  On behalf of 
SCORN, I subsequently provided testimony in 1989 at a coal fired power plant 
licensing hearing about mercury pollution from burning coal --a subject now 
recognized as a major environmental concern. "Nescience" is a great word 
which basically means ignorance derived from the latin root nescire: to be 
ignorant..

6) By conducting a small study of Cs-137 in woodash residual from open air 
nuclear bomb test fallout  with input from scientists all over the US who 
measured Cs-137 in ash from their locations,  that lead to major media 
coverage after I presented a paper at an Annual Meeting of the HPS held in 
DC,  pointing out the inconsistencies in the manner radioactive waste 
streams were treated from nuclear  power and medical sources vs. the pulp 
and paper industry. I pointed out if Cs-137 in wood ash from the pulp and 
paper industry were subject to the same regulations as hospital and nuclear 
facility waste handling requirements, it would cost the paper industry $60 
billion per year to dispose of their wood ash as low-level radioactive waste 
[if disposed of at about $100/ft^3], rather than mixing it with manure and 
spreading on organic farming coop fields as was commonly done in many parts 
of the US! The data and import of this study was published in many dozens of 
front page newspaper stories, magazine articles including a good perspective 
story in Organic Gardening magazine [which had been encouraging their 
1,000,000 monthly readers to mix woodash into their home gardens as a soil 
amendment to replenish potassium, and Science News, and on radio interviews 
with a very left-wing slant, after the media outlets spoke with me [on my 
own time after work since my employer wanted to distance itself from this 
study].  Organic Gardening magazine ended up saying that a few millirem per 
year from using radioactive woodash was of no concern given the approximate 
350 mrem/year who body dose equivalent then estimated by the NCRP.

After all the wood-ash press, I was told by the Maine State Nuclear Advisor 
to the Governor that they public had stopped expressing any concerns about 
nuclear power issues, and only wanted to know about radioactive wood ash and 
what it meant to them!!

All of the above example efforts were done over a period of years with no 
support [and generally active discouragement] from my then employers. THE 
trouble is that the nuclear industry has not, at least in the past, 
encouraged efforts like the above. Scientists, in my experience, have been 
actively discouraged by their corporate employers from getting involved in 
"the fray" and no time has been permitted to take part in efforts like radio 
debates on nuclear issues, or answering press inquiries on a technical 
issue. Companies would rather have a Public Affairs staffperson make a "no 
comment" comment vs. discuss the issue in a meaningful way responsive to 
public concerns OR INTEREST IN RADIATION ISSUES RAISED BY SOME POSITIVE 
PRESS COVERAGE.  My initial  Cs-137 in woodash Health Physics Feature 
article calling for a nationwide survey to understand the variations of 
Cs-137 in woodash around the US which might be used to make unfounced claims 
about a given nuclear plant elevating Cs-137 in its vicinity,  did lead to 
an attempt by my supervisor at the time to have my employment with this 
utility terminated.

In another situation, while working for another utility corporate office, I 
was asked to debate an anti-nuclear physician who had made exagerated and 
worthless claims about excess leukemia due to radiation exposure at the 
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard --later proven totally false.  I requested 
permission in written form per company procedure, to do this sort of thing 
on my own time -perhaps one day every few months, where I would make it 
clear that any opinions I expressed were my personal views, and time would 
be taken off only with the permission of my supervisor so as not to conflict 
with work duties.

As a result of this [what to me seemed like a simple]  request, my employer 
at the time summoned me into a meeting with the Chairman of the company --a 
dozen attorneys at his side,  to make it quite clear that if it ever got 
back to him that I made any statement in any public forum that could be 
considered as pro-nuclear, I would no longer by an employee of this State 
Power entity. When I asked the Chairman if I might ask "why?" I was told 
that the Governor of that very large Northeastern State was not in favor of 
nuclear energy and that if any of the Power entity staff made a pro-nuclear 
statement, it would embarass the Chairman of this company with the Governor 
to whom he reported.  Hmmm.

This ostrich approach was being pursued by this utility even tho' it had 
several nuclear stations which were subject to constant criticism by the 
public, and in the media -- presures that were adding greatly to costs, and 
to many vocal calls to shut down one of their units.

Efforts to counter anti-nuclear activities has to be long-term and creative, 
something which the nuclear industry has shown little inclination to do.

Despite all this, as the old bumper sticker from about 20 years ago read 
[tongue in cheek]:
"Ni illigitimi carborundum"
--[translation of mock latin: "Don't let the bastards grind you down."

:-) Happy 4th to all,

Stewart Farber, MS Public Health
Consulting Scientist
Farber Technical Services
Bridgeport, CT 06604
[203] 441-8433 [office]
[203] 522-2817 [cell]
email: radproject at sbcglobal.net
===============================
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl at cox.net>
To: "'John Jacobus'" <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 10:09 AM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Mangano's New Study

John makes a good point. No matter what political or other persuasion one
subscribes to, the fact for the majority is that they do believe what they
preach, and it's not just an agenda or that they're playing a devil's
advocate role to further the debate. They truly believe what they preach. As
I mentioned previously, Dick Toohey gives an excellent presentation titled,
Why No One Believes Us: Cognitive Neuroscience and Radiation Risk. It
provides excellent examples and factors for this reality.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Sander C. Perle
President
Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc.
2652 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, CA 92614

Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306
Fax:(949) 296-1144

E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com
E-Mail: sandyfl at cox.net

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

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of John Jacobus
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 6:38 AM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Mangano's New Study

Why do you think they have a "left-wing extremist
ideology?"  Is it possible they believe the data is
true?  If so, then all the arguements and explanations
you present will not change their minds.

I would suggest reading "Why People Believe Weird
Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other
Confusions of Our Time,"
http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/080507089
3/ref=sr_1_1/103-7576284-3301444?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183469614&sr=8-1