Re: FW: Latest Anthrax research special

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

RADSAFERS:


Here is a story that touches both anti-nuke sentiment and the anthrax threat, and I think is instructive regarding what the misplaced emphasis on "perceived risk" has led us to.  This is a true story.  I am not identifying the principals (except for myself):


A very close friend of mine is an assistant to a highly-placed corporate executive in the Washington, DC, area, and she routinely opens his mail.  She already calls security for suspicious mail and asked me what other precautions she should take, and I suggested just wearing gloves to handle the envelope and the letter opener until she could check the contents.  


Now her boss is a very knowledgeable and intelligent and well-educated person, though not in the physical sciences.  I have talked to him on a few occasions, and he is concerned about the dangers of nuclear power and spent fuel transportation.  However, when my friend suggested wearing gloves to open the mail, he responded that, if she was that scared, he would open the mail himself (without precautions).


In other words, this  thoughtful individual perceives the risk from nuclear plants and RAM transportation -- a completely hypothetical risk -- as worth preventing, but perceives the risk of anthrax contamination -- a quantifiable risk with actual realized fatal consequences -- as not worth worrying about.  


In my opinion, this gentleman epitomizes what the legitimizing of "perceived risk" has brought us to.  I don't know why he should think and behave so irrationally, but I am fairly certain that it isn't ignorance: he could certainly inform himself if he wanted to.  Nor would he be influenced by any of the platitudinous approaches we get from the social scientists: e.g.


"If you only said it in words people understood, everything would be OK."

" I understand your pain and fear."

" Let me explain in simple, eighth grade words how safe nukes are."

" I understand that your perceived risk is very real to you."


and worst of all:


"You are entitled to give your unfounded opinion the same weight as fact."


People like this gentleman don't need simple language, or hugs, or having their pain understood.  He is probably deriving his attitude from things said to him by people whom he doesn't second guess, and who seem to be part of the influential anti-nuclear establishment.  After all, I don't second-guess my geologist friends; I figure they know what they are talking about.  


I suspect he gets his information on nuclear power and nuclear waste from people like the Nuclear Control Institute, NRDC, Union of Concerned Scientists, and so on, because that is what it sounds like -- sort of "moderate anti-nuke."  These organizations have identified themselves with the thoughtful "left."   By distorting, misemphasizing, and blatantly but cleverly disseminating misinformation, these organizations have embellished the specter of nonexistent radiological risks to the point where it diminishes or obliterates the very real risk from anthrax and other possible terrorist ventures that we now face.   They have abrogated their responsibility to put the unvarnished truth in the proper perspective.  We will now unfortunately reap the consequences of such unethical behavior. 


Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com