Re: Federal Guidance Report No. 11 and the Truth

["Daniel Mackney" <photond@EARTHLINK.NET>]

A lack of trust is not the problem. The main problem is how well you can

sell fear. The politicians sell fear because people want to listen to them

and the news will cover them. The activists sell fear because they get a

spotlight and money from donors. And the news media sell fear which gets

more viewers and in turn gets advertising revenues. Many of the places I

have been (Indian Point, Perry, Shoreham, West Valley, WIPP) have all been

attacked from the fear stand point. Shoreham got shut down and sold for a

buck. Even though NYS knew from experience that nothing would happen. WIPP

was held out like the sacrifical lamb until Congress provided the states

with sufficient money to outway the "votes' generated by the fear mongers.

We all know fear sells. That's why we have "amusement" park rides that

hurtle you to the edge and movies that do nothing more than slash and kill

people. That's why some people on this site are able to substantiate

consistent replies to all the "crap" they portend  as problems. If it was so

bad to have all these reactors and to handle and dispose of the waste, they

would be actively fighting all the hospitals in the world from using

radiation to take "x-rays" , cat scans, or provide medical treatments.  But

they don't. Because the public has constantly been told that use of

radaition is good. But never told that the handling and disposal is under

the same practices as the power generating business. These people won't even

face the fact that the world's worst nuclear accident at Chernoybl did not

blow up and wipe out the eastern part of Europe making that area a totally

iuninhabitable waste land that no living thing can be in.

So how do we sell facts? The Discovery channel has no where near the number

of viewers that even Fox has, and the latest science fact is always a small

article in the 12th section back page of your Sunday newspaper. We see a

decline in those people studying HP or radiochemistry because there is no

perceived future in a science that is "dangerous". Yet, everyone that I've

taken from Environmental Science, Biochemistry, and even Engineering  and

shown the TRUTH about radiation has stayed here.

----- Original Message -----

From: "William V Lipton" <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>

To: <hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net>

Cc: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 7:25 AM

Subject: Re: Federal Guidance Report No. 11





> Obviously, you have not heard of:

>

> Three Mile Island - There was no excessive dose to the public, yet nearly

fatal consequences for the nuclear industry.  Why?  I'd say a loss of trust.

>

> Shoreham - Even though the reactor was built to applicable standards, the

people of Long Island wouldn't let it run.  From the statements I heard at

the

> time, the average Long Islander would sooner have his first born son crawl

across the Long Island Expressway at rush hour than let Shoreham run.  Lack

> of trust?  (Please don't try to be the victim by blaming the media,

Christie Brinkley, Mario Cuomo, the tooth fairy, etc.  They wouldn't have

been

> listened to if there weren't an underlying lack of trust.)

>

> Rancho Seco - The owners (the voters of the Sacramento Municipal Utilities

District) voted to shut down the plant, even though it had fixed it's

> problems.  A loss of trust?  (CA could sure have used a few hundred extra

megawatts, last year.)

>

> BNL - High Flux Beam Reactor - A fuel pool leak resulted in a tritium

plume.  There was virtually zero dose to the public, yet political pressure

forced

> DOE to close the facility, with a severe economic impact on the local

area.  Loss of trust?

>

> Yucca Mountain - Why is NV so dead set against this huge economic benefit

which has been demonstrated to have virtually no environmental impact?. (It

is

> difficult to imagine how any activity short of more weapons detonations

could make NTS any worse than it already is.)  Lack of trust?

> ...

>

> The opinions expressed are strictly mine.

> It's not about dose, it's about trust.

> Let's look at the real problem, for a change.

>

> Bill Lipton

> liptonw@dteenergy.com

>

>

> hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net wrote:

>

> > Bill,

> > Your statement, "It's not about dose, its about trust."

> > is incorrect. If you know that and repeat it, ----.

> >

> > Dose is everything in medicine

> > (life or death).

> > Likewise with radiation - also now a medicine, which HP's can help

individualize.

> >

> > Howard Long

> >

> >

>

> ************************************************************************

> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

>



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/