Public info, risk perception and fear of nuclear

["Philippe Duport" <pduport@uottawa.ca>]

Public info, risk perception and fear of nuclear.



In the context of public info in normal days and in case of incident,

perhaps a system like the Teleray network in  France would go a long way

towards reassuring the public and putting things in perspective.



The site of the French Office de Protection contre les Rayonnements

Ionisants - OPRI (Office of Protection against Ionizing Radiation) is at



http://www.opri.fr/



If you open the site and go to "controle de la radioacivité'' , you have the

option '' air ambiant'' that gives direct access to a network of on-line 178

gamma monitoring stations in a country smaller than Texas.  In normal days,

data are updated every working day (according to my last info which is a

couple of years old).  In case of incident, data can be updated every hour

or more frequently.   There is an OPRI probe in every "prefecture" (there

are over 90 such territorial units in France) in addition to a station at

every nuclear facility or research center.



It is interesting to compare the reading at the Aiguille du Midi near

Chamonix in the Alps (240 nGy/h on March 8, no nuclear facility nearby) and

at la Hague (84 nGy/h on March 8).  La Hague is a reprocessing plant, which

is a few kilometres away from Flamanville (8 power reactors) and of the

military nuclear harbor of Cherbourg.



In countries like the USA and Canada public, direct access to on-line

probes, would make it easier to defuse alarmist information and to put

ambient dose rates in perspective, whether in normal or accidental

situations.



Philippe Duport

pduport@uottawa.ca





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

From: "Paul lavely" <lavelyp@UCLINK4.BERKELEY.EDU>

To: "Michael Stabin" <michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu>

Cc: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 1:12 PM

Subject: Re: pstd





> Michael G. Stabin wrote:

>

> >

> >Yes, I think that ABC/CBS/NBC, Public Citizen and Greenpeace may indeed

be

> >responsible for much unnecessary PTSD in the population, and they should

be

> >held accountable for such.

>

>

> I like your idea, but I think that the causative agent may be too far

> in the past to hold them legally accountable.

>

> Ah, if only we could sue anyone in our past for "wrongs." I have this

> bully who used to beat me up in the 5th grade who I would REALLY like

> to sue. I also have a nun from catholic grade school who comes to

> mind. Seems that she could (but the statute of limitations and that

> she is dead) face a really hard to answer to challenge for assault.

>

> Perhaps this is why the statute of limitations for these causes of

> action was enacted.

>

> Again, I still firmly believe that the media (ABC, CBS, NBC) were not

> malicious in the reporting on the TMI as news. The ones who made the

> issue a greater problem than was truly present was a combination of

> the government and the "experts." By the way, when I say experts I am

> speaking both pro and anti nuclear sides. I saw too many technical

> folks and engineers trying to communicate with the public at large.

> One came from a standpoint of science and engineering and the other

> from fear and outrage. Not a good fit for effective communication.

>

> Finally, I agree that the anti-nuclear power groups used and continue

> to use TMI as a linchpin in their arguments. Can we reasonably expect

> otherwise? Each side uses propaganda (The systematic propagation . .

> .  of information reflecting the views and interests of those

> advocating a doctrine or cause or material disseminated by the

> advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause). However, both sides

> use the word "information" because of the negative connotation that

> "propaganda" evokes.

>

> Many of us are going to continue to be advocates FOR nuclear power

> and there are others who will advocate the opposite. Lets hope that

> the vast (dare I say it?) "silent majority" can make a good and

> reasoned decision.

>

> Paul lavely <lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu>

>

>

>

>

> --

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

> 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/

>