RE: Three mile island syndrome

["Lavera, Ron" <RLavera@entergy.com>]

And if the Nuclear Power industry in the USA spent a billion dollars a year
on advertisements, it would soon be considered a viable source of energy for
the country.  

mine and mine alone


Ron LaVera
rlavera@entergy.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas J Savin [mailto:tjsav@lycos.com]
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 9:31 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
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