|
Gets monotonous after a while, doesn't it?
Bill Lipton insists on trivializing the use of
statistics to evaluate overall safety as "comparative body
counts", which he deems worthless. (Maybe we should stop using
automobile accident rates as indications of the relative safety of
intersections, roads, automobile models, safety systems, etc.)
But he insists that reducing the rules
infraction "percentage" (which are just the statistics HE wants to
compare), will magically turn public perception around. As if the
public would know - or care - that the nuclear industry improved some
obscure statistic from 99.98% to 99.99%.
Sorry, there is no level of perfection that
can be attained on reducing rules infraction rates that will make a bit of
difference to the public. It is the big picture (i.e.,
the comparative body counts) that they understand.
Case in point: the number of violations at
Tokaimura was irrelevant to the public until the accident occurred
that resulted in the unfortunate deaths. Why? Because most
people had never heard of Tokaimura before that.
Some questions: if the nuclear industry achieved a
100% infraction-free state, as Mr. Lipton seems to think is possible, when would
we know? Who's decision would it be? What criteria would be
used to decide that perfection had been attained? How long will
it take the public to accept the nuclear industry with open arms -
after a week of no infractions? A month? A year?
And, most importantly, what would keep the
public from immediately blowing off the announcement as just another
"nuclear industry / government" lie? (I can tell you the answer to the
last one - nothing!) In short, it will never happen that way.
Vincent King
Grand Junction, CO
P.S. And I think suggesting that those with a
different opinion than yours are "whining for the right to be as careless
as someone else" is insulting to the consciencious individuals that
make up the health physics profession. It is important to have standards
and enforce them. But success in that arena has much
less effect on public perception than do the hype-mongers who use (and
who often populate) the media.
|