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

["Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@prodigy.net>]

Perhaps I missed it, so could you please cite where we "proved" that TMI,
Chernobyl, etc. could not happen.
Also, which standards, regulations, or guidelines require absolute safety?
jjcohen@prodigy.net


-----Original Message-----
From: William V Lipton <liptonw@dteenergy.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: The FEAR is Our own worst enemy. (Re)


>Perhaps, the reason we have such trouble proving a negative is that, as
soon as we
>"prove" that something can't happen, it does:  TMI, Chernobyl, the myriad
DOE
>horror stories.  The reason we're held to such a high standard is that we
set this
>standard, and then fail to deliver.
>
>The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
>It's not about dose, it's about trust.
>
>Bill Lipton
>liptonw@dteenergy.com
>
>Al Tschaeche wrote:
>
>> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>> --------------F5E29A2DE6C4764B3CA25210
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>
>> 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
>>
>> --------------F5E29A2DE6C4764B3CA25210
>> Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
>>  name="antatnsu.vcf"
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> Content-Description: Card for Al Tschaeche
>> Content-Disposition: attachment;
>>  filename="antatnsu.vcf"
>>
>> 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
>>
>> --------------F5E29A2DE6C4764B3CA25210--
>>
>> ************************************************************************
>> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

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