[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: "Perception is reality" (was DOE Sec addresses "Dirty Bombs")

I got lost in the squabble that was occurring so lost what the original issue was, the Secretary's statement about a dirty bomb. But Jim Hardeman put it back into perspective for me, and he did it very well. If a terrorist group sets of an RDD, the "perception" of too many of the public and elected officials will be such that, as Jim stated, we who will have to respond will deal with a "reality" of having to track almost every atom down and work to convince people they aren't going to die from the radiation exposure. Their perception of risk results in the reality of them being afraid, even though the reality of actual health effects is not there. I thought the Secretary's speech was well thought out, and represents the reality of what we're going to face with the public if this happens. I understand the dose verses trust thing very well too. Even with small doses, the public won't believe us if they don't trust what we're saying, and the only way we earn their trust is to be empathetic to their concerns, whether ultimately valid or not. Educating a frightened member of the public is not a black and white issue. It takes considerable care to be believed. I find myself there all too often.

All right folks - enough bickering on this.
 
As I recall, the statement we're talking about is ...
 
'"Although these dirty bombs are not comparable to nuclear weapons in destructiveness, they are far easier to assemble and employ," said Abraham. "While the physical destruction they would cause is comparable
to conventional explosives, the disruption caused by widespread contamination is far greater. And it is disruption that terrorists seek." In addition to the psychological disruption, use of a dirty bomb
could have significant economic consequences."
 
So what is it about the above statement that y'all find so objectionable? Whether you believe in "perception is reality" or not, the fact remains that widespread (regardless of how you define it) radioactive contamination (regardless of the level) as a result of a dirty bomb WILL result in disruption, and MOST LIKELY will have some economic consequences ... if in no other sector that agriculture. You have to remember that we're not talking about OUR perceptions, we're talking about the perceptions of the general public, and the elected officials for whom many of us work. 
 
I fully expect that my staff and I would be tasked for a LONG time tracking every last atom if something like this were to happen in Georgia, despite any technical argument that we could make about risk, dose, etc. ... because for the most part, the technical folks who understand the situation are not the ones making the decisions. You can make an argument that even the elected officials are not making the decisions, since they're more likely to do what they think will get them or their party re-elected, rather than doing what is "right". So, in the global sense, it is the folks who vote (i.e., a subset of "the general public") who ultimately will be making the decisions about how to handle contamination ... and unfortunately, we haven't done very well in educating them about "all things radioactive" ... so we will suffer the consequences of our action (or inaction) over the years.
 
Now, can we let this drop?
 
My $0.02 worth ...
 
Jim Hardeman