Re: Avoiding improper use of isotopes in the laboratory

[Neon John <johngd@bellsouth.net>]

William V Lipton wrote:
> 
> It's precisely the attitude you express that has doomed our industry.  This
> arrogant "The public isn't smart enough to understand." approach is the real
> problem.

Not at all.  Being someone who has spent a lot of time engaged in
nuclear educational efforts over the years, I take at least a little
offense to such a flippant remark.  Regardless of the efforts to
educate the public, the fact remains that as long as the public is
incapable of anything more technical than simple math, as long as
enough people will believe whatever the media tells them (exhibit A:
National Enquirer, et al) and as long as the media is willing to
subvert their collective consciences to the god of the headline, no
amount of education on our part will matter one whit. 
 
> 
> If you don't think that these "nonevents" are "real," ask someone at Brookhaven.

Why? What does Brookhaven have to do with this thread?
 
> The only segment of this industry which can be called successful is the Nuclear
> Navy.  They achieved this by convincing the public that they take every photon
> seriously.

The nuclear navy has succeeded by means of all encompassing,
overwhelming (and IMO, necessary) secrecy enabled by the necessity
of national security.  I bet that if you walked up to 10
non-engineer/non-scientist people on the street, 9 out of 10 would
have no idea that the terms "nuclear navy" and "nuclear reactors"
have anything in common.  I've yet to meet a single person who was
not associated with the program who could even guess within an order
of magnitude the power of a naval reactor.  Had the civilian program
been allowed to boast only of our successes and hide our couple of
missteps, we'd be celebrated in a similar fashion.  An objective
look at the score shows that.  On the civilian side, one melted
core, a couple of damaged ones elsewhere but no nuclear-related
injuries or deaths.  On the military side, at least two sunk subs,
several blown reactors (starting with SL1), numerous deaths and who
knows how many injuries?  I'm not criticizing the military side in
any way.  Indeed I consider the (known) casualty count on the
military side to be amazingly low for their achievements.  I merely
suggest that flippantly declaring the civilian program a failure
while citing the navy as a shining example of nuclear honesty and
safety is a bit disingenuous.

If one really believes that the LNT theory is wrong and the
threshold theory to be more accurate, then it is time to walk the
walk.  Our stating that LNT is wrong while simultaneously "taking
every photon seriously" continues to promulgate the LNT lie.  What
do you expect even an educated layperson to think of this
dichotomy?  If we really believe that any dose below a threshold
really and truly is harmless, then it is appropriate to say that
events such as the one under discussion had no radiological
consequences and therefore no additional or different radiological
protective measures are necessary.  The property and assault crime
can be dealt with conventionally.

John
-- 
John De Armond
johngdSPAMNOT@bellsouth.net
http://neonjohn.4mg.com
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html