RE: More on "informed dialogue" - Clarification

[Rotman Mark <MRotman@snm.org>]

I would like to clarify my previous statement as I did not do a good job of
communicating it.

I do not advocate the NRC becoming a public educator, there should not be a
University of the NRC.  However, I do advocate the NRC doing a better job of
providing the truth and consequences, when it gets involved in enforcement
actions which have risen to the level of media interest.  Even the NRC
admits educating the public would reduce much of their burden, see the quote
below from NUREG 1539.  Yet even knowing they should be educating the public
they do not do it.  Why?  Because, I believe, they benefit from radiation
hysteria.

"The public should be given the opportunity to understand the actual as well
as the perceived risk of the use of radioactive materials. Values and
beliefs findings indicated that more education could greatly contribute
toward decreasing the need for incident-triggered rules and regulations."
(Chapter 4, NUREG 1539)

Thanks for letting me clarify my point... -M

Mark Rotman
Government Relations
Society of Nuclear Medicine
703-708-9000 ext. 1242
703-708-9777 FAX
mrotman@snm.org
http://www.snm.org



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