RE: More on "informed dialogue"

[Bob Flood <bflood@SLAC.Stanford.EDU>]

At 10:35 AM 1/11/2000 -0600, you wrote:

>I have to categorically disagree with Mark's assertion that is 
>incumbent upon the NRC to educate the public regarding the risks of 
>radiation exposure, perceived or real. This is not their function, 
>nor should it be. Whether we agree that it would be a benefit, the 
>truth is that their interjection into public education will be viewed 
>as collusion between the regulator and the industry being regulated. 

While I concur with this IN THEORY, the reality is that every time the
regulator charges into a situation making a public display of evaluating
hazards, investigating licensees, and finding multiple faults that require
remedial actions in cases where no one was actually harmed IS educating the
public. It is very effective at convincing the public (and the press, which
has seen exactly as much education about radiation as the public) that
something very dangerous occurred, when in fact it was something like a
procedural problem and no one was hurt.

As long a regulators respond out of proportion to an actual hazard, the
viewing audience (the press and the public) will believe that a large
hazard existed. And that is one thing that we, the people, DO NOT pay the
regulators to do. It does, however, help the regulator justify continued
regulatory activity.

We Radsafers may be guilty of not attacking the education and public
perception problems effectively, but that does not absolve anyone else
involved of responsibility for their actions.

===================================
Bob Flood
Dosimetry Group Leader
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
(650) 926-3793
bflood@slac.stanford.edu
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html