Re: The FEAR is Our own worst enemy. (Re)

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

What a wonderful explanation of why one can't prove a negative!  See my
comments below.

Bob Flood wrote:

> At 01:20 AM 2/15/00 -0600, you wrote:
> >
> >> It is impossible to demonstrate something has no risk.
> >
> >Because . . .  (?) few (if any) objects or activities have no risk.
>
> No, it's because you can't prove a negative. For example, let's have you
> prove that did not rob a bank yesterday. Identify every bank that you
> didn't rob, the witnesses that saw you not rob them, and the FBI report
> identifying all the fingerprints that aren't yours.
>
> You really can't prove a negative.
>
> And this is the environment in which the nuclear industry is required to
> operate. The highly visible and vocal opposition demands that the industry
> be eradicated because it cannot prove that it isn't killing people. The
> opposition can't prove that it IS killing people, but they don't seem to
> feel there's any reason why they should - they are very comfortable with
> the idea that it's the industry's obligation to prove they don't.

And, whenever you have a discussion on this subject, be sure the ground rules
are established before the main discussion begins.  I was sandbagged one day
when I was to discuss the hazards of plutonium.  I was under the impression
that those people on the side of "plutonium is the most dangerous material on
earth" had to prove their argument.  It turned out that I was expected to
prove "plutonium is not the most dangerous material on earth."  But no one
told me that beforehand.  So, of course I lost.  The moderator even told me
afterward what I was expected to do.  I was incensed, but it was too late
then.   I learned a good lesson from that mistake.

> How
> convenient. It's a pity we have a press that can't figure this out. And as
> long as the press don't get wise to this technique, the opposition will be
> far more effective at scaring people than we ever will be at undoing this
> damage.
>
> But the question remains, how do we change this?

We use your example every time we hear or see someone try to tell us we must
prove safety or no risk (absolutely impossible to do).  If anyone else has a
similar example, please post it.  I will collect them for future use.  The
only way to change the current thinking is to provide thinking that is better
and more truthful.  The truth will out as the statement "You can't prove a
negative" will eventually be understood and accepted (by most thinking people
- the feelers will have a problem with it, of course) even by the EPA!  It may
take a while, but, if vigorously pursued, will win in the end.

Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net
begin:vcard 
n:Tschaeche;Al
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Nuclear Standards Unlimited
version:2.1
email;internet:antatnsu@postoffice.pacbell.net
title:CEO
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Al Tschaeche
end:vcard