Re: The opinions expressed are strictly mine

[Neon John <johngd@bellsouth.net>]

William V Lipton wrote:
> 
> No, I'm saying just the opposite. We not only have to be safe, we also have
> to be so safe that there can be no doubt in the mind of a reasonable person.

This is the crux of the problem.  We have in the past promised and
failed to deliver on the obviously impossible promise of (in the
public's mind) perfect, no defects safety.  Since that philosophy
has failed, why continue with it?  Why not, instead, adopt the
philosophy that our industry operates under the highest safety
standards that are reasonably achievable and that our record proves
the soundness.  I think we make a mistake in responding to the other
side's accusations of lack of safety.  That allows then to frame the
discussion.  In public discussions, I refuse to talk in that
context.  I instead steer the conversation back to the superlative
safety record of the industry, certainly better than any other.

What we failed to do is manage the public's expectations for nuclear
power.  This is management and sales 101 but we missed it.  I can
understand how - I can remember when nuclear energy was viewed by
everyone - public and industry alike - as the panacea for the
world's woes.  Who could have imagined back then that expectations
would need managing?

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