----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 12:16
AM
Subject: How do we educate people on
the realities of risk?
Anxiety
and fear were crucial factors in influencing public attitudes towards
nuclear power. - This isn't new, one can argue. Yes this isn't new!
This was the conclusion pointed out more than 45 years ago, in 1957, by a
study group of the WHO - Mental Health Aspects of the Peaceful uses of Atom
Energy - WHO Technical Report Series 151, Geneva 1958.
The
charge that public fears of nuclear power are largely irrational has been
made by citing the safety record of the nuclear industry. However these
fears have been justified and strongly reinforced by the accident in
Chernobyl, in which 31 workers died and which long-term evacuation of some
135.000 local people was necessary. Although the actual loss of life at
Chernobyl was relatively small - comparable to any other severe industrial
accident, the enforced evacuation of a large number of people from their
homes and land for a period of years is very complicated to accept. On
the last it is also necessary to add the uncertainty of the future
generation due the exposure.
We
can't only argue about the Russian system and Radiation Safety Conception,
take the Tokaimura Accident: How can public accept so insensate error?
Japan birthplace of culture and family respect!
Public
today, as in the past is not different, superstition, spiritualism and a
belief in magic are still commonplace and regarding nuclear energy the
above is due in part to the expectation of apocalyptic disaster that was
deeply implanted in public culture.
To
educate people first of all is necessary to reduce the large gap of
perception of risk, both political and public and professional and
public. France has enough experience in dealing with both
situation, the country's nuclear power programme is supported both left and
right wing governments and the general public.
Jose
Julio Rozental
Israel
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 6:31
AM
Subject: Re: Not using LNT to
calculate risk does not mean there is no risk.
In a message dated 12/23/2002 8:10:45 PM Pacific
Standard Time, jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu
writes:
My draft letter
points out that neither the HPS nor the
ICRP have stated that there
is no risk from low doses.
I agree, but we must keep in mind there is risk from
every conceivable human activity. What scientist in their right mind
would ever say there is "no risk" from something? I don't think
that's legitimate under any circumstances. There is a "risk" that a
reindeer will trample me to death on Christmas Eve. It may be
vanishingly small, but there IS a risk.
I recently had an elected
official say to me, "If you would just "prove" to the community this is
absolutely safe, then there wouldn't be a problem," or something to that
effect. How does one respond? You CAN'T "prove" that anything
is absolutely safe. You can drown in milk, accidentally slit your
wrist with a nail file, suffocate on the smoke from the chestnuts roasting
by your open fire by forgetting to open the chimney flue. NOTHING is
"absolutely safe." It is silly to think in those terms. Yet,
where "exotic" harms are involved, such as the public perceives
radioactive materials to be, they expect some impermeable warranty on the
safety.
How do we educate people on the realities of risk?
That's the real question in my opinion.
Barbara