Re: Request for suggestion

[Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Jim Muckerheide wrote:

> Bernard L Cohen wrote:
> >         --I am using the entire spectrum of meltdown accidents, with their
> > probabilities, as given by the Probabilistic Risk Analyses like WASH-1400
> 
> But then the consequence analysis is fiction, and part of fear-mongering about
> radiation effects.

	--If you believe that Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) is
fiction, how do you explain to the public that the consequences of reactor
accidents are not an important problem? To the public, this is the most
important problem.
	I see no reason not to believe in the PRAs, including all the
studies of actual experience that have been used to verify the PRAs.
	The public should not be exposed to debates among credible
scientists; that will only confuse them. In dealing with the public, I
think we should use only things that are generally accepted within the
scientific community. For example, if I were writing a book about nuclear
power for the public today, I would still use linear-no threshold theory
(in spite of the fact that I have clearly shown that it fails), although I
would include a chapter on why this gives gross over-estimates. The case
for nuclear power is strong enough that there is no need for introducing
controversial arguments.

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