[ RadSafe ] Interesting article

Wed Aug 4 19:09:41 CDT 2010

For an interesting (and depressing) diversion, search on "Somebody's got
to stand up to experts", and watch the clip of Don McLeroy, Chairman of
the Texas Board of Education, defending not only ignorance, but teaching
it.  (Yes, the argument is slightly more complex than that, but he is
wrong at a number of levels.)

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan W McCarn [mailto:hotgreenchile at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 4:16 PM
To: 'Wade Allison'; Brennan, Mike (DOH); neildm at id.doe.gov;
radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article

"Most people are acutely aware of their own ignorance and fear" 

Dear Wade:

I wish that what you said was true, but I have found is that people tend
to
believe their own worst fears, especially when those fears are promoted
by
groups with anti-nuclear agenda. I remember years ago (1995-1996) while
working at the Sosny Labs (Minsk, Belarus) on a Chernobyl project, when
asked by US Embassy personnel about my dosimetry, I told them that I was
getting about 80% of the dose that I would normally get living in
Albuquerque. I was told that I was lying. I gave them my dosimetry
results
over the previous year, but they refused to believe it. Not long after
that
I met an American tourist - who threw away the fruit that she was given
by
her Belarusian host (a banana and an orange) because the US Embassy told
her
to eat no fruit in Belarus because it was radioactive. I explained that
the
banana and orange were certainly not grown in Belarus because the
climate
was too cold.

Not too many years ago, New Mexico passed a new law relating to
"groundwater" quality, focused on uranium. Now every State has drinking
water quality standards, but New Mexico was coerced into formulating new
laws simply as an obstacle to uranium mining. Those intelligent,
well-educated lawmakers are not the kind that would be motivated by
"real
explanations" but rather by the confused state of their constituencies
and
the well-funded anti-mining lobbyists.

Dan ii

--
Dan W McCarn, Geologist
108 Sherwood Blvd
Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
+1-505-672-2014 (Home - New Mexico)
+1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Wade Allison
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 14:07
To: Brennan, Mike (DOH); neildm at id.doe.gov; radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article

Dear Mike
As you say, I dont think that we disgree. The problem is in the politics
not
in the science.
As seen from through European eyes (my UK ones anyway) there are
intelligent
people out there who would understand if we told them the truth. They
are
the people I have been trying to address in my book. Without them on our
side, we are lost. I must say that I find them very receptive. Of course
some come up to me and say "So who is paying for your work?" To which I
say
"nobody. I am saying what I know to be true for the sake of my
grandchildren, and I do have a fair idea of what I am talking about." It
works, so far at least. One day I will get a punch on the nose, no
doubt.
The real antis are frightened and persuading them, or rather pacifying
them,
comes later. Most people are acutely aware of their own ignorance and
fear
(and me, so I work on it). Such a meta-stability in public opinion can
generate rapid change as we have seen in attitudes to smoking. You know
the
story of the Emperor's New Clothes. So I am hopeful.
That's in the UK. In October I am going to Australia to give several
talks.
Divisions and ignorance are greater there, I understand. In the US
perhaps
you have a greater divide too and the politics is different again. But I
am
convinced that educated middle America, like educated middle Brits, need
real explanations that they can understand. I hope that you would find
that
I have made the case in my book although it is very hard to get the
language
right. 
Best
Wade

Professor Wade Allison, MA DPhil  w.allison1 at physics.ox.ac.uk Emeritus
Fellow, Keble College, Oxford, UK OX1 3PG "Radiation and Reason"
http://www.radiationandreason.com <http://www.radiationandreason.com/>
(Oct09) 0-9562756-1-3 "Fundamental Physics for Probing and Imaging"
http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-920389-X
<https://winfe.physics.ox.ac.uk/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.oup
.co.
uk/isbn/0-19-920389-X>  (Oct06)

________________________________

From: Brennan, Mike (DOH) [mailto:Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV]
Sent: Wed 04/08/2010 18:46
To: Wade Allison; neildm at id.doe.gov; radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article

Hi, Wade.

As I said, I don't disagree with your overall message.  I think that
there
is plenty of room to argue that dose limits are more restrictive than
are
needed to protect public health, and I would welcome an open discussion
of
this among informed professionals, especially if there were a chance the
policy makers would listen. 

My concern is that the sentences "In fact radiation is much less harmful
than we feared. Given the availability of carbon-free nuclear power,
this
makes a sea change in our view of radiation rather urgent." give the
impression that you feel we need to dose limits to the public in order
to
facilitate nuclear power.  I realize that your position, like mine, is
that
we should not let mindless fear of radiation prevent the construction of
newer, better, safer nuclear power plants.  I suspect we also agree that
the
current dose limits likely exceed what is needed to protect public
health,
though it is clear you feel more strongly on that point than I do.  So
we
are basically in agreement.

My point is that these two issues should not be conflated, and to the
extent
they are there are antis who will use it to say, "SEE!  They want to
change
the limits so they can poison women and children with radiation from new
power plants!"  I know this is not the intent, and I recognize that the
antis will twist everything to support their world view, but I don't
think
we should toss them any easy balls. 

Just my opinion.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Wade Allison
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 1:56 AM
To: Brennan, Mike (DOH); neildm at id.doe.gov; radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article

For clarification, neither the data nor the article as a whole suggests
any
relaxation in reactor control design and safety. Those were the problems
at
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. The concern is the unwarranted
exceptional
treatment of human radiation safety. If not relaxed, this seriously
unbalances our prospects in other areas, such as the use of fossil
fuels.
This does not disagree with Mike, perhaps, but some have misread the
article
[for which I was set a rather tight word limit.]

Professor Wade Allison, MA DPhil  w.allison1 at physics.ox.ac.uk Emeritus
Fellow, Keble College, Oxford, UK OX1 3PG "Radiation and Reason"
http://www.radiationandreason.com <http://www.radiationandreason.com/>
<http://www.radiationandreason.com/>  (Oct09) 0-9562756-1-3 "Fundamental
Physics for Probing and Imaging"
http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-920389-X
<https://winfe.physics.ox.ac.uk/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.oup
.co.uk/isbn/0-19-920389-X>  (Oct06)

________________________________

From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Brennan, Mike
(DOH)
Sent: Tue 03/08/2010 19:31
To: neildm at id.doe.gov; radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article

While I don't particularly disagree with the author's message, I do wish
he
(and everyone else) wouldn't use statements like, "Given the
availability of
carbon-free nuclear power, this makes a sea change in our view of
radiation
rather urgent."  Selling nuclear power on its "carbon-free" attribute is
a
mistake, as it unnecessarily embroils nuclear power in an argument that
should be about the down-side of burning stuff that throws crap into the
air.  Secondly, relaxing the standards for radiation exposure to the
public
should not be sold as necessary for the expansion of nuclear power, as
proper design, construction, and operation of a nuclear power plant does
not
expose the public to anything close to current limits (and if someone
feels
they need to be sloppier in their design, construction, and/or
operation, I
don't think I want them involved.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of
neildm at id.doe.gov
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 10:31 AM
To: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article

I just found an article on the website of New Scientist magazine
supporting
the position of relaxation of radiation limits based on more rational
perception of the risks.

"Our attitude to ionising radiation is irrational, and easing safety
limits
would do far more good than harm, says Wade Allison"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727715.800-whos-afraid-of-radiat
ion.html

Here is a pirated blurb about the author: "Wade Allison is a nuclear and
medical physicist at the University of Oxford and the author of
Radiation
and Reason (YPD Books). He has no ties to the nuclear industry."

Dave Neil
DOE-ID Lessons Learned Coordinator

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  - George
Santayana

_______________________________________________
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu <http://health.phys.iit.edu/>
<http://health.phys.iit.edu/>
_______________________________________________
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu <http://health.phys.iit.edu/>
<http://health.phys.iit.edu/>

_______________________________________________
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu <http://health.phys.iit.edu/> 

_______________________________________________
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu