RE: Suggestions? and MSC story to be on CBS- Misuse of language

["Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj@aecl.ca>]

> William V Lipton[SMTP:liptonw@dteenergy.com] wrote on Friday January 14,
> 2000 7:39 AM
> To: 	Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: 	Re: Suggestions? and MSC story to be on CBS- Misuse of
> language
> 
<snip>
....an accident that wasn't supposed to happen, did.  This is an all too
familiar
> story in this business, and unless we put a stop to it fast, we'll
> continue our
> downward spiral.
<><><><><><><><><><>

Comment: 
The above seems to imply that only a perfectly accident-free record in the
nuclear industry will put a stop to biased media reporting.

I think there are at least two problems with this :

First - obviously - there is no chance of ANY industry ever achieving a
perfect safety record, and that goes for nuclear too ("very good" yes,
"perfect" no ).

Second, it could probably be argued that as far as the media is concerned,
exactly the opposite is true -- that the nuclear industry's very good safety
record actually contributes to the "freak factor" of accidents that do in
fact occur, that their rarity makes them particularly appealing to media
reporters (and in the absence of an accident, even the mere threat of harm
will do in many cases, with fanciful "what if" scenarios substituted in
place of reality, etc., etc.).
Compare this to any one of a number of far more hazardous human activities
where the sheer number of injuries & fatalities is so high that the media
doesn't bother reporting accidents at any level except perhaps the local
suburban neighborhood paper. An familiar example is automobile accidents,
where the only ones that get global media coverage are huge pileups that
cause many deaths at once. Has the car industry experienced a "downward
spiral" on account of all these accidents ? Evidently not !!  Similarly, the
frequency of natural gas explosions has gradually reached the stage where
only big, multi-fatality blasts get global media coverage. But gas is
becoming more & more popular everywhere. One of the most common causes of
serious injury & death is people falling from the roofs of their houses -
but rooftop solar collectors and windmills remain very popular in spite of
it - no doubt due to the dearth of media hype of such mundane accidents...

Since neither I nor (I assume) Bill want to reduce biased media coverage by
sharply increasing the accident rate at nuclear installations, alternative
approaches are called for. A few of us have suggested some, attempting to
deal more with the media's perverse reporting habits than with the
impossible goal of achieving perfection in industry. You say its "the
dumbest suggestion I've heard in quite a while." Would you care to come up
with a better one ?

regards,

Jaro
frantaj@aecl.ca


> > Bernard L Cohen[SMTP:blc+@pitt.edu] wrote on Monday, January 10, 2000
> 1:49
> > PM
> > 
> > 	A copy of the letter I sent to Reuters follows:
> > 
> > 							January 7, 2000
> > Mr. Steven Jukes, Editor
> > Reuters News Agency
> > 1333 H St., NW
> > Washington, DC
> > 
> > Dear Mr. Jukes:
> > 	I am writing to point out a gross misrepresentation in a Reuters
> > Dispatch from London, Dec. 31. It listed the 27 worst disasters of 1999,
> > for each event giving the date and the number of deaths resulting. 
> <snip>
> <snip>
> <snip>
> > 	In summary, [the Sept. 30 nuclear accident in Tokaimura, Japan ] was
> > an industrial accident that killed one worker and injured two others.
> How
> > does this deserve being included on a list of the years worst disasters?
> > Industrial accidents kill 1800 workers per year
> > in Japan, and several times that number in U.S.. Why aren't these
> > thousands of other accidents on your list?
> > 
> > Sincerely
> > > 
> > Bernard L. Cohen
> > Physics Dept.
> > University of Pittsburgh
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> 
> Comment:
> 
> Prof. Cohen's letter is much appreciated.
> 
> Journalists probably will not admit it, but I believe that one reason why
> thousands of other industrial accident deaths didn't make it on to their
> lists of the worst disasters of 1999 is the "curiosity" or "freak" factor
> associated with nuclear accidents, however small they may be relative to
> "real" disasters (which killed many people at once). 
> 
> One effective way to counter this pathological behavior may be by
> "fighting
> fire with fire," ie. by keeping track of, and, at opportune moments,
> pointing out other non-nuclear "freak" accidents in the recent past, to
> the
> offending publication/program. 
> Although radsafers may find this to be a somewhat macabre suggestion (I
> think it is), it will likely enjoy a greater degree of "success" with
> media
> editors/programmers and with the public, than simply presenting cold
> statistics. (Who is it that said "numbers do not a news story make" ?)
> 
> Naturally, I have a current example, which appeared in today's
> [correction: National Post],
> but which, like other "minor" news stories, did not get posted on their
> web
> site, nor is it likely to appear anywhere else (in sharp contrast to the
> global coverage of the Tokaimura story):
> 
> Q U E B E C
> 
> Man killed by snowblower
> 
> ST-ALBAN * A 59-year-old man 
> has died after being sucked into a 
> giant snowblower. René
> Grondines died Tuesday after his
> clothing got caught in the ma-
> chine's blade, which has a diame-
> ter of about one metre. Police be-
> lieve he was trying to clear some-
> thing away from in front of the 
> blade. His body was found later 
> by his wife. The accident fol-
> lowed the first major snowfall in
> the region west of Quebec City.
> =========================
> 
> Comments anyone ?
> 
> regards,
> 
> Jaro
> frantaj@aecl.ca
> 
> 
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html