[ RadSafe ] (no subject)

Sat Nov 5 01:28:55 CDT 2011

There is little doubt that reactions based on fear were indeed an
adaptation that contributed to our survival as a species over the course of
tens of thousands of years, and for millions of years before that in our
predecessor species.  The genes that code for the complex protein
structures that collectively are expressed as survival instinct behavior
are certainly deeply ingrained in our genome.  So it is likely that this
inherited behavior is also a contributor to what seems to us (the experts)
to be an over-reaction to the hazards that accompany the generation of
nuclear power which are not detectable by the five senses (i.e., Ted de
Castro has a valid point).

But it is also true that such behavior was dominant before our species
engaged its intellect into high gear.  And there lies the heart of the
problem.  The growth of our technology from "stone knives and bear skins"
(thank you Mr. Spock) up to the present day's zillions of applications that
have resulted from an understanding of the quantum chromodynamic nature of
our universe did not happen because people remained stuck in the "fear
gear."  The rise and acceleration of abstract and reasoned thought by bold
and gifted individuals is what propelled technology to its current state.
Those less gifted applied their intellect by trusting the intellect and
uncommon abilities of the innovators, and went along with new technologies
because they were immediately and personally beneficial, even though they
remained ignorant of the details.  This lead-and-follow pattern is still
with us, but the current masses are not trusting the captains of our
industry to lead them into reliance on what has become an extremely
operationally safe and reliable energy source.

There are numerous influential factors that have resulted in the masses of
Western cultures not engaging their intellect to trust the leaders on this
issue.  Here are a few that I have noted over the course of my career in
health physics:  1) the associated hazards are undetectable by the senses,
2) an ignorance/lack of education about the multitude of beneficial and
life-saving applications of nuclear power (e.g., not just electricity
generation, but also medical diagnostics and therapeutics, radio-labeling
in bio research, food and materials sterilization, self-powered lighting,
smoke detection, deep space probe power sources, and many other industrial
applications), 3) an ignorance of the current state of highly refined and
successful methods and practice of both reactor plant and radiation
protection operations, 4) fear-mongoring-for-advertising-dollars by the
media who also are uneducated on the subject, 5) the very loud, organized,
and ignorant anti-nuke minority who are manipulated and falsely led
by their leaders, but who are a perfect setup for the media referenced in
4) above,  6) the inappropriate and frustrating, but inevitable link with
nuclear weapons by the media and the antis (it's just irresponsible
journalism, which has become the standard in the U.S.), 7) oversight by a
federal agency (AEC/NRC) that has also played the role of promoting the
industry (yeah, that really fosters trust), 8) TMI and Chernobyl, even
though depth-in-defense engineering of the TMI reactor vessel held up under
the high temp of the largely melted core, and the Chernobyl plant's
graphite moderated design is not, to my knowledge, used in any operating
Western power plant--not to mention the fact that their engineers foolishly
and purposely defeated the plant's safeguards to run a push-it-to-the-limit
test, 9) let's face it, nuclear engineers and health physicists are
perceived by the public as nerdy (myself included), and are not good
promoters of their craft--I mean, really, how many of us have the
telepresence of Michiu Kaku (love him or hate him) or Brian Greene, and
last, but certainly not least, 10) political gain:  politicos will say
anything, and I mean anything, to turn the camera eye their way and get a
vote.  I have personally witnessed this many times:  "Don't bother me with
the truth, son, can't you see the camera is on and my lips are movin'."

After many years of observing these factors, I have concluded that what
underlies the fear and distrust reactions to anything nuclear is that
people are responding via the emotional centers of their brain and not
their intellect, and this relates to Doug Minnema's point taken from
Pinker's book.  We are hard-wired both for emotionally driven response and
reasoned thought, but most folks' behavior is dominated by one or the
other.  It seems that when the individual's processing of and response
to any issue is dominated by emotion, e.g., when he/she is in "fear
gear," his/her intellect is suspended.

I certainly don't want to be discouraging, but this, Jason, is the paradigm
of Western society that must be overcome if nuke power is to prevail.  I
respect your noble effort to educate people on this issue; laying out the
facts might lead some people to shift their opinion.  They have to apply
their intellect, however, even if it's only to reason that we know what
we're doing and can be trusted not to fail them.

Carl Ed Johnson, Jr.
Still sometimes HP, unaffiliated
505-463-6685
cejjr56 at gmail.com

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Ted de Castro <tdc at xrayted.com> wrote:

> It was said well by the character Gill Grissom in a CSI episode:
>
> To loosely paraphrase:
>
> There are those who become concerned at every sound in the dark/night and
> those that don't - we are here today because our ancestors are the ones who
> did.
>
>
> On 11/4/2011 9:28 AM, Douglas Minnema wrote:
>
>> This reminds me...
>>
>> I read a good book a few years ago called "The Blank Slate" by Steven
>> Pinker.  It discussed the debate about how much of our personality and
>> behaviors come from "hard-wired" genetics versus environment and parenting.
>>  I am not trying to start up a debate here on this subject, but wanted to
>> share one of Pinker's conclusions that is relevant to this comment.
>>
>> If one accepts that "hard-wired traits" play a role, then one comes to
>> the conclusion that there are certain topics where a society will never
>> reach a common understanding because of the way the various hard-wired
>> traits influence the individuals' worldviews.  Pinker provided a few
>> examples, two of which I'm sure you all can guess - religion and politics.
>>  But interestingly, he also added nuclear power to that list.  His view was
>> that in these areas, the members of a society would just have to get to the
>> point where they agree to disagree.
>>
>> Given that, I think that tossing the facts out and letting them draw
>> their own conclusions is probably the most realistic approach.
>>
>> By the way, (and staying on the topic of nuclear applications) if
>> correct, this view of the world would have significant implications for
>> things like safety culture and conduct of operations, where individual
>> attitudes and values play an important part in ensuring safe operations.
>>
>> Doug Minnema, PhD, CHP
>>
>>  "Miller, Jason"<jmill11 at entergy.com>  11/04/11 2:21 AM>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I have been following this mailing list for a while, and thus is why I
>> have come to ask for a little help. I work at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
>> Station here in Vernon, Vt. I am an Aux operator here. The public opinion
>> is not to high regarding the power plant, moreover I tend to be drawn to a
>> public board that a few anti nukes also post on. I have pretty much
>> exhausted all my efforts to not really convince but to just toss the facts
>> out there and let them draw their own conclusions. This is why I turn to
>> the tried and true professionals, especially in the HP field! This board is
>> kind of a lost cause but I still find the need to set the record straight.
>> If nothing else it gets pretty funny at times reading it. Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Jason M.
>>
>> http://www.topix.com/city/**brattleboro-vt<http://www.topix.com/city/brattleboro-vt>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> 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 <http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html>
>>
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>> visit: 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 <http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html>
>>
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>> visit: 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 <http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html>
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>