Re: More on "Perception is reality"

["Richard L. Hess" <lists@richardhess.com>]

Ruth,



Interesting analysis--one that I will admit to worrying about.



However, I mitigate some of the risk

  (1) I always wear my seat belt

  (2) I TRY and avoid the situation you found yourself in

  (3) My own vehicles (note the s) are Suburbans

       which I can afford ecologically and financially as

       we burn less gas due to our choice to live near my

       work than many others in far more fuel-efficient

       vehicles. We use 20-30 gallons of gas a MONTH

       in each vehicle when we're not on long trips.

  (4) My wife and I rarely go out after dark.



About two years ago, a Honda Accordion wanted to find out for itself if the 

Chevy "Like A Rock" ad campaign was true. Accordion was the proper term for 

the front hood, fenders, etc. Air bag went off. Occupant unhurt. Steam 

coming out of engine. The Like a Rock's bumper was offset about 10 degrees. 

Accordion's insurance paid for new bumper to restore full protection.



A friend rolled a Suburban off the 101 near San Jose. He was forced off by 

another vehicle. Survived a 40-foot drop. A colleague saw a Suburban 

T-boned in Florida by a semi. All occupants survived.



Anyway, yes, at least some of us think of these risks (but you wouldn't 

have expected any less of me, would you? <smile>) ... And yes, I feel more 

"in control" when I'm driving than when I'm flying.



At 09:29 AM 9/20/2002 -0400, RuthWeiner@AOL.COM wrote in part:



>I think (and I'm ready for the brickbats, folks) that "radiophobia" and the

>associated fears include a fair amount of self-delusion, whether deliberate

>or inadvertent.



I think it's "collective." It happens around the water cooler.



>I am sure Jim Hardeman is right -- there would be clamor, at

>least initially, to clean up every atom, etc., though I think the clamor

>would subside.



It certainly would! As we've discussed before. It is more likely that 

people will be hurt if a mass evacuation was ordered. So why didn't more 

people evacuate Hurricane Andrew? Why do we fear radiation more than 

hurricanes or tornados?????



>Also, it's easy and convenient to blame the government or some nebulous

>corporate entity,



Yes, but when you hear stories like Davis-Besse and others about how 

management failures created a situation that only over-engineering (and I'm 

a proponent of that...see Like A Rock, above) kept from being a worse 

situation, you wonder as much about the administrative/operational issues 

as you do about the technical issues.



I was going to take my wife's car in for service this morning. So last 

night (before a rare night out) she transferred her personal stuff to my 

car (truck, whatever). She left the dome light on in her car. The new car 

(mine) has an auto off--over engineering to protect against a common user 

error. I had to get out the charger for my wife's car before taking it in 

for service.



I point this out, because mistakes happen in the normal course of events. 

Under high pressure corporate situations ("toxic corporate culture" I 

believe was one phrase I've seen in conjunction with D-B) there is more of 

a risk of errors happening...and "I don't cares" happening.



>and to think that "the government" is paying for the

>cleanup and forget that the source of "the government's" money is the same

>taxpayer who is paying car insurance.



I find this is common, especially in socialist leaning countries. I don't 

think my beloved mother-in-law ever understood where her Canadian 

Government Checks really came from.



>I also believe that the anti-nuclear

>movement deliberately perpetuates and exacerbates radiophobia.



That is a true statement. The motivations behind that act range, I'm sure, 

from lining ones pockets to a genuine concern that there is a risk that is 

being swept under the national carpet. Most of the people I know are 

sincere in their beliefs that the risks outweigh the advantages. The images 

of mushroom clouds in the desert are seared into our collective 

consciousness and the possibility of that happening at a nuclear power 

plant is considered real.



As one folksinger friend said in a concert we have on tape: "Ontario Hydro 

is going around trying to calm the fears that we're trying to stir up right 

here."



What is his motivation? He believes that nuclear power is risky. Why not 

solar? tides? (Bay of Fundy) "honey bucket." He really wants these 

alternatives explored. I suspect it's also a "big iron" vs. "grass roots" 

project scale issue in his mind as well.





>Bottomline?  1.  Radiophobia is based largely on the LNT, for which there is

>no evidence.



But at least some experts support promulgate that. I'm glad to see the 

Science article covered in at least some of the popular press (as just 

posted to this list).



>2.  There is a common perception, or belief, that exposure to

>small amounts of ionizing radiation is  lot more risky than accumulated

>evidence shows it to be.



Again, that is what is fed to us by the likes of Wasserman and the many 

people who believe that there is some truth in his collection of newspaper 

reports (which in themselves may be erroneous).



>3.  This is a misperception, and there is no other

>honest way to say it.



Then the HP professionals need to work together to get the word out, but 

this would need to be done with the support of all of the bureaucracies 

within (and outside) our government that don't necessarily have an interest 

(for whatever reason) in doing this.



Cheers,



Richard



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

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/