[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Request for suggestion
Your saying that, " ... air polution [sic] kills people. Well this is good news ..." Is this what you mean? Spoken like a true safety professional! What's your opinion of war, hiv, starvation ...?
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
Thomas J Savin wrote:
> Well its about time! I was driving to work this morning and heard an interesting news bit. It stated that air polution kills people. Well this is good news - its about time something has hit the press that may help people to think. I am firmly in Bernie's camp - fire against fire - no - I take that back its more like fact against fire - and we have the facts.
>
> Only the best for everyone!
> ---
> Tom Savin
>
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:16:55
> William V Lipton wrote:
> >I think that you have become too immersed in your own arguments. Public
> >concerns about nuclear power are not over a theoretical, incremental increase
> >in the cancer rate. The concern is that many members of the public do not
> >trust the utilities or the government to operate the technology safely; eg.,
> >TMI, Chernobyl, and the many DOE fiascos. Unfortunately, there are enough
> >incidents out there to lend credibility to the anti-nuke arguments.
> >
> >Trust will NOT be restored by comparative body counts (eg., "Chernobyl killed
> >1000 people , but coal killed 1002; hence nuclear is safer."). Trust will NOT
> >be restored by theological arguments about lnt, no matter how well
> >constructed.
> >
> >What the nuclear power industry needs is an extended period of time with a
> >good operating record, i.e., low cost, high capacity factor, and no screwups.
> >To accomplish this, we need constructive critics, NOT apologists. The
> >industry failed by becoming defensive to the point of considering any critic
> >to be an enemy; just look at past events at Millstone. We are finally
> >beginning to turn this around. I hope that it's not too late.
> >
> >What we really need is continuing agressive, but constructive self
> >evaluation, and a willingness to constantly improve ourselves.
> >
> >The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
> >It's not about dose, it's about trust.
> >
> >Bill Lipton
> >liptonw@dteenergy.com
> >
> >Bernard L Cohen wrote:
> >
> >> For the last 27 years, the principal focus of my life has been to
> >> do research related to societal impacts of nuclear power, and since that
> >> research has consistently led to my favoring that technology, to try to
> >> convince the public to support it. In these endeavors, I have authored
> >> four books plus chapters in several other books, I have published about
> >> 200 papers in various journals, and I have presented about 500 public
> >> talks for various audiences. In these and in my research, I have addressed
> >> every issue in the nuclear power debate.
> >>
> >> However, in my view there is one over-riding issue that is
> >> preventing general public acceptance of nuclear power -- the public thinks
> >> that nuclear power can cause cancer which kills people, and is therefore
> >> too dangerous for expanded use. I firmly believe that the future of
> >> nuclear power depends almost entirely on countering that misconception.
> >>
> >> My approach to countering it has been to point out that coal
> >> burning, our principal source of electricity generation, is estimated to
> >> kill 10,000 or more Americans every year with its air pollution, whereas
> >> nuclear power is estimated to kill less than 10 (including accidents and
> >> buried radioactive waste treated probabilistically, and accepting
> >> linear-no threshold theory). There is extensive scientific documentation
> >> supporting both of these estimates, 10,000 vs 10, and I believe they are
> >> generally accepted in the scientific community and by governmental
> >> agencies in U.S. and internationally. To me, this is a rational method for
> >> countering the public's misconception.
> >>
> >> However, I have recently been heavily attacked on RADSAFE for
> >> using this approach. In my responses to these attacks, I have asked for an
> >> alternative approach to countering the public's misconception about the
> >> dangers of nuclear power. However no suggestions that I can recognize as
> >> such have been offered. I am therefore left sorely in need of an
> >> alternative approach. Can someone please help me on this?
> >>
> >> Bernard L. Cohen
> >> Physics Dept.
> >> University of Pittsburgh
> >> Pittsburgh, PA 15260
> >> Tel: (412)624-9245
> >> Fax: (412)624-9163
> >> e-mail: blc@pitt.edu
> >>
> >> ************************************************************************
> >> 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
> >
>
> Get FREE Email/Voicemail with 15MB at Lycos Communications at http://comm.lycos.com
> ************************************************************************
> 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