AW: [ RadSafe ] Asbury Park Press on Mangano's press conference

[Earley, Jack N]

Sandy Perle wrote:
"it is the knowledgeable professional that should clarify, refute or reinforce what is stated."

To which I have to reply with the question, "Why?"

Are we the guardians of truth and accuracy in the media? If the media (and by extension, the public) wanted truth and accuracy, would they be listening to fear mongers and celebrities in the first place? The latest issue of "Trends" (AudioTech) describes this as part of the Panic Du Jour. This is a simple case of "follow the money." Fear sells books, fame, newspapers, advertising space, etc.

Take the calculus approach and expand it to its infinite degrees. What's the worst that's going to happen? Delay the resurgence of nuclear power? Then what? Also addressed in this issue of "Trends" is the upcoming backlash from the public that's going to result from the inconvenience and cost of reducing carbon emissions.

Maybe we should go back to where the fear started in the first place. Was someone in the 50's espousing excessive caution about radiation to protect their job? If so, then we're back where we started--following the money (is this there where the LNT started?). Maybe someone was (or is) looking to build a personal empire. The bottom line is still just the bottom line (except for those who just need a little--or a lot--of drama in their lives to actually feel alive).

If you want to do something useful about the fear mongering, find a way to profit from it (besides just going to work every day). At best, you're an apologist for the nuclear industry (have you ever heard of an apologist for the anti- anything?), so why waste the energy? I tell people the truth when they ask me about nuclear power, and sometimes I even volunteer information, but I don't bother trying to sell them my position. It's just information, and they can make any choice they want to with it.

 
Jack Earley
Health Physicist
509.372.9532