[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Three mile island syndrome
I guess where I balk is the "selling" aspect. We are not (or at least I am
not) trying to sell nuclear power, or even sell an attitude. I would like
people to think rationally (vain hope, maybe).
I agree about radioactive waste. In fact, when people say "well there's no
way to handle the nuclear waste" I respond quite firmly "oh yes there is"
and proceed to talk about it. Maybe that doesn't change anyone's mind on
the spot, but it's not readily forgotten or put aside. I'm not sure
salesmanship of the usual type is effective in this instance.
Ruth Weiner
ruth_weiner@msn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas J Savin <tjsav@lycos.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Friday, December 08, 2000 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: Three mile island syndrome
>I think you have it wrong (of course this will not convince you, please
laugh). I see the problem as one where most people are "sold" on an idea.
Case in point Procter and Gamble spends over a billion $ a year in
advertising (I live in Cincinnati), do you think that the majority of people
are willing to become educated on their products? The answer is no - please
don't squeeze the Charmin - the majority of people "buy" because they
remember something catchy. As Ronald Hanson said in his recent post (I'm
paraphrasing) people remember dead bloody skeletons being thrown off a roof!
He is correct - this is why people need to be re-educated about the benefits
of nuclear power - like it was in the 1960's when it was seen as a clean
energy source - which it obviously can be.
>
>One other point, nuclear waste is NOT a problem - it only is because that
it is perceived to be. What came from the ground can go back in the ground.
It really is that simple - not complicated, as we are being convinced.
>---
>Tom Savin
>
>On Thu, 7 Dec 2000 12:59:57
> ruth_weiner wrote:
>>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
>>
>
>
>Great Gift Idea! FREE cell phone, internet ready at Lycos Marketplace
> http://www.inphonic.lycos.com/redirect.asp?referringpage=www.lycosd1
>************************************************************************
>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