Re: Three mile island syndrome

["ruth_weiner" <ruth_weiner@email.msn.com>]

I don't think "convincing" is quite the appropriate posture.  This is the
point of view I present (both to students and to others in discussion):

"Nuclear power is not a religion, but a means of producing electricity.
"Belief" or "trust" are not involved.  Like any other means of converting
heat to energy, it has environmentally damaging side effects: waste is
produced and must be dealt with, and very radioactive products of fission
must also be dealt with.  We try to minimize environmental damage but we
can't eliminate it.   Unsafe operation of a nuclear power plant or of an
enrichment facility or of an x-ray generator or of any other facility
handling radioactive materials can lead to health damage and in the worst
case, death, and that is why we are careful to operate these facilities
safely.  The same can be said about fossil fuel burning power plants (yes,
they are operated safely), hydroelectric dams,  chemical plants, dry
cleaning operations, auto repair shops, etc.

It is currently chic to exaggerate the dangers of nukes.  Those who benefit
by exaggerating either the environmental or health damage of any facility
will continue to exaggerate it, and people who want to believe them will
continue to, and trying to convince them otherwise won't work.

If you really want to know, it behooves you to learn something about how
nuclear power is generated, and then you can make up your own mind."

This is why I agree that  trying to portray other means of electric power
production as villains and nukes as saints, or even only portraying other
means as worse villains than nukes, is self defeating.

Ruth Weiner
ruth_weiner@email.msn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ROCKWD@aol.com <ROCKWD@aol.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thursday, December 07, 2000 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: Three mile island syndrome


>In answer to your question regarding convincing people of Nuclear Power's
>positive side, see the book "The Dynamics of Technical Controversy."  I
think
>the author was Maher (I lent my copy and am not sure).  His thought is:
When
>a controversy boils down to a pro technology side versus an anti technology
>side, the motivated anti's will usually win the battle for public opinion.
>Especially when the technology is very complex and not easily understood by
>the public.  The reason is the technologists, by their nature, are not
>equipped to resort to the sort of emotional appeals of the motivated
anti's.
>Pro's talk about projected (or in the case of Southern California, current)
>energy needs and anti's get on the evening news screaming about your
children
>mutating while dressed in a skeleton suit and throwing blood on the
utility's
>headquarters building.
>
>Roland Hanson
>************************************************************************
>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