[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Request for suggestion
Caution: ranting ahead!
I believe the problem -- and the approach -- are considerably broader than
"mistrust of nuclear power" because one sees the same kind of junk science
applied to chemical contamination, certain food (e.g., coffee drinking
increases the risk of breast cancer) , certain medical procedures (remember
the silicone implants?), the use of medication (I just read an article that
claims that wheatgrass extract is the only veterinary medication one needs
for anything). And to repeat myself (perhaps ad nauseam), this is not a
question of "trust" or "faith."
Moreover, the "answer is not easy. I believe that we must do a better job
of requiring analytical thinking, not just teaching it to children but
enforcing it in adults. "Well, I don't know but I suspect..." which
translates to "I don't know but I'd like to think..." should not be an
acceptable rationale for anything. Moreover, we should put scientists in
charge of scientific endeavors -- not lawyers and people with MBA degrees
(even Harvard MBA degrees). We should junk this notion that "scientists
don't know how to write for the lay public" as well as the prevalent DOE
notion that DOE documents are written for tenth or eighth or sixth grade
reading levels (there seems to be a competition for low grade numbers going
on), which anyway they aren't.
We should not tolerate lies and distortions. And I don't just mean Bill
Clinton lying about sex, which is less egregious than the other lies and
distorions that appear daily in the press. I don't trust anything I read in
any newspaper any more, and I don't even watch television.
I short (and in order not to go on and on about this) we need a societal
"sea-change" in which (a) having open scientific arguments that include
uncertainty is preferred to empty reassurances, so people don't pretend to
know things they don't know, (b) being a victim is not a virtue, so you
don't have these hordes of pseudo-victims, (c) apply the scientific method
to scientific endeavors, and (d) insist that if "the public" are going to
play science games, they need to play by science rules and learn what those
rules are. Ignorance is NOT a virtue!
Thanks for listening.
Ruth Weiner
ruth_weiner@msn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: William V Lipton <liptonw@dteenergy.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: Request for suggestion
>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
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html