RE: More on "informed dialogue"

[carol marcus <csmarcus@ucla.edu>]

At 10:35 AM 1/11/00 -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. 
>This was an issue many years ago, when there was the AEC and ERDA. 
>The issue was that the regulator should not be promoting 
>simultaneously.
>
>If we want to educate the public, there are many venues to do so, 
>such as HPS, AAPM, EEI, NEI and more importantly, informed members of 
>the public. Let's not confuse the role of the regulator. What we can 
>ask though, is that the regulator be conscientious when dealing with 
>issues originating from those they regulate. Interject reality into 
>the equation. That is quite different from education.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Sandy Perle					Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100   				    	
>Director, Technical				Extension 2306 				     	
>ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Division		Fax:(714) 668-3149 	                   		    
>ICN Biomedicals, Inc.				E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net

>ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue  		E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com

>Costa Mesa, CA 92626
>
>Personal Website:  http://www.geocities.com/scperle
>ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com
>
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>

Sandy and Radsafers:

"Promotion" and "education" are two vastly different things.  NRC can
certainly educate the public to understand the basis of NRC's safety
requirements, without actively campaigning for more nuclear power plants or
more uses of materials.

The real problem is that NRC doesn't have the staff or management with the
knowledge to educate the public, and the NRC has no desire to educate the
public, because its bureaucracy is based on keeping public hysteria fanned.

A case in point is the Dec. 20, 1999 letter to Representative John Dingell
signed by Chairman Richard Meserve in response to 45 stupid antinuke
questions posed by Dingell.  Meserve's response is 104 pages of legal
gobbledygook, mewing and whining that there is no safety hazard involved
with Tennessee's allowance of a company to dispose of mildly radioactively
contaminated metal. This was a wonderful opportunity to write a letter
educating Dingell and all the others who will see this letter.  However,
there was not a single attempt at sensible scientific education anywhere in
the 104 pages 
(http://www.hsrd.ornl.gov/nrc/special/dingell.pdf).

As long as lawyers run the NRC, instead of highly qualified and competent
scientists, NRC's Materials Program will continue to be a national disgrace.

Ciao, Carol

Carol S. Marcus, Ph.D., M.D.
<csmarcus@ucla.edu>

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