Re: Nuclear Regulators: Attack Risk Low

[BLHamrick@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 08/15/2002 10:17:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lists@richardhess.com writes:




> So, why is the NRC (the arm of the government originally founded, I think, 
>
> to promote the safe use of nuclear energy) coming out with scare stories if 
>
> they're not true?




I can't answer your questions on the inventory at San Onofre nor Diablo Canyon, nor comment intelligently on the safety features, as reactor design and function isn't my forte, but I can comment on why high level officials continue to couch their language in terms that set no one's minds at ease.


1.  There is no such thing as 100% safe from a scientists point of view, and most scientists will not say things such as "That will never happen," or "There will be no health consequences if it did."  So, the phrases always come out, "We think that is highly unlikely," or "It appears the consequences would be negligible."  All that caveating is not comforting.  However, it is technically correct, as it is technically correct that there is some finite probability we'll be visited by extraterrestrials tomorrow (but I'm not changing my life based on that probability).


2.  Political appointees, more than any other category, I believe, try to play both sides, which in this case includes a little pandering to the irrational side of the house.  (The theory is don't come right out and call them nuts, they may be your boss in November, or 2004, or whenever, or you may need them to launch your own campaign.)


3.  They have nothing to lose by these techniques and everything to gain, except, of course, personal integrity, but that's hasn't counted for much in our political system for years. 


Those are my personal thoughts on the matter,

Barbara L. Hamrick