shut down of informed dialogue

["Michael Stabin" <stabin@npd.ufpe.br>]

> If anyone ever wrote a book about RADSAFE, it should be titled,  "Days of
Whine
> and Roses."
> This is more likely due to its decision (It was a decision, even if by
default.)
> to allow a release  from the fuel pool over several years, than to the
personal
> crusades of actors and supermodels.

Here I will agree with Ruth and respectfully disagree with Bill.
We have all witnessed, over the past few
decades, what must be recognized as one of the failings of democracy.
Organized disinformation campaigns focused on disturbing the public through
emotional appeals have greatly succeeded in inhibiting the progress of many
technologies (among them nuclear), and organized information campaigns by
scientific groups simply have not been able to counter.  The
appalling spectacle of Sissy Spacek, Jane Fonda, Ed Asner and others
testifying on
Capitol Hill as experts in farm policy or nuclear technology, because they
have acted in a movie about the subject, is a scathing indictment of the
health of our society in these matters.  In the AEC days, the government
decided what was "good for you" in terms of nuclear policy and just did it.
Technical decisions were based on input from the best minds of the day, and
were generally sound.  Post-Watergate, we as a society have decided it is OK
to equate the voices of journalists and actors with those of
Nobel-prize-winning physicists on matters involving physics, because the
government can't be trusted.

We, the scientific community are also at fault - we have abdicated our role
in public dialogue by our silence at times (allowing irresponsible
information to be disseminated without comment) and by our failure to be
relevant to our society at others.  Our voices, when they are heard, are
often hyper-technical and lacking in substance.  Our relevance in society is
mostly limited to our workplace and the one technical journal to which we
subscribe.

>We would be in sad shape in the U. S.
>if the local "public" (whoever they are) could dictate the research we do.

We are in sad shape, and the public does dictate the research that we do.
Witness the Clinch River breeder project, declining funds in basic research
in many areas including radiation physics, biological effects, etc.
Congress gives the funds, and they listen to the public.  I doubt that
Clinton is as vehemently anti-nuke as his policies have been, he follows the
polls, and polls blow thataway these days.  This is good re-election
strategy, and generally bad science strategy.

> In any event, this is now history.  The question that we should be looking
at is
> what other potential fiascos are out there.  These must be identified and
> addressed before they become public concerns, if the industry is to
survive.

I clearly agree here.  Another thing that needs to be identified is leaders
and spokespersons who can do a credible job of stating the truth about such
matters in a way that the public will hear.


Michael Stabin, PhD, CHP
Departamento de Energia Nuclear/UFPE
Av. Prof. Luiz Freire, 1000 - Cidade Universitaria
CEP 50740 - 540
Recife - PE
Brazil
Phone 55-81-271-8251 or 8252 or 8253
Fax  55-81-271-8250
E-mail stabin@npd.ufpe.br

"Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of"
- Steven Wright



************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html