Re: shut down of informed dialogue

[William V Lipton <liptonw@dteenergy.com>]

Just to set the record straight, I originated that statement, not Michael
Stabin.

Regarding your concerns about the media inhibiting all of these wonderful
technologies, it would be more useful to complain about the weather.  I grew up
in the 60's, when technology for its own sake was considered good, and
scientists were heroes.  That's no longer true.  All technology is looked at
with the question, "What's in it for me;"  and the public won't accept any risk
unless they see a clear, personal benefit.  Notice how General Electric has
changed its corporate slogan from, "Progress is our most important product." to,
"We bring good things to life."  It's a fact of life, and, if we want to
survive, we have to work within these rules.  Complaining and denial are worse
than useless, since they not only make us look bad, but also distract us from
addressing the "real problem."

The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.

Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com


Michael Stabin wrote:

> > 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

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