Re: Dirty Bonbs & Radiophobia

["jjcohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>]

  ----- Original Message ----- 

  From: BLHamrick@aol.com 

  To: jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET ; RuthWeiner@aol.com ; LNMolino@aol.com ; tedrock@starpower.net ; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu 

  Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 6:49 PM

  Subject: Re: Dirty Bonbs & Radiophobia





  In a message dated 10/28/2003 12:20:42 PM Pacific Standard Time, jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET writes:

    To educate the public, one must overcome decades of strong antinuclear

    indoctrination. I don't know if it would be possible. In any case, it would

    certainly not be easy.

  Here are the problems the professional community faces in educating the public, as I see them:



  There are a reasonably small number of very, very vocal nuclear activists, whose livelihood and access to power depends on continued opposition to all things nuclear, irrespective of the facts.  



  The techniques used by many of these activists include hyperbole, distortion, dire-sounding statements made without the proper context, and appeal to the base emotions of their audience (i.e., mostly fear).  The professionals, and particularly the government officials in regulatory agencies cannot, and (generally) do not want to, compete with these activists by using these techniques, because these techniques are inherently dishonest.



  The facts of a situation, as presented by agency officials, or other professionals are generally boring, tedious, and complicated.  This is not a good recipe for engaging an audience.  In addition, once the damage has been done by certain activists that don't feel constrained by the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, it is very, very difficult to recoup from that.



  As my Evidence teacher, in law school, put it:  "Stand up and object at the first sign that the opposing attorney is going to ask something misleading.  If you wait, and the jury hears his question, it is like he has stabbed you with a hot knife (his simile was actually something more graphic) - the judge may rule that he has to remove the knife, but you will know it was there for the rest of the trial.  



  Countering this situation is difficult, but it can be done.  Some of the more flamboyant activists use techniques reminescent of the snake-oil salesmen of yore, and should be quickly and routinely challenged on every single public mis-statement made, until their credibility is equal to the credibility of their cumulative mis-statements.  This will require a coordinated effort by professionals in all areas - government, academia and industy.



  Change will also require a conduit to Congress and State Legislatures.  Get involved.  Join the Health Physics Society, the Society of Nuclear Medicine, the American Nuclear Society, or other professional organization, and volunteer for a committee.  If you work for a State radiation control program, find out from your program director if you can join the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, and volunteer on one of their committees.  There is no dearth of positions for volunteers in any of these organizations.



  We can continue to "talk amongst ourselves" or we can find the means to reach out to the public and have our voice heard, but it will require a lot of work.



  With that in mind, I remind you again that two very important rulemakings are in the works at the EPA and NRC, on clearance and disposal of residually-contaminated materials.  Contact me privately for details.



  Barbara L. Hamrick, CHP, JD





  Barbara,

      What you say makes sense, but the problem, as I see it, is that neither side of the nuclear/radiation controversy really wants the truth to come out. The antinukes will, of course,  continue to inflame public fears to advance their own agenda.     

      However, many nuclear "insiders" also depend on radiophobia to justify their existence. For example, those involved in ALARA programs benefit from the big money expended on preventing miniscule radiation exposures. Surely this would be unnecessary if radiation at any dose level were not considered  dangerous. The Yucca Mtn. boondoggle would also be unnecssary if the true nature of the nuclear waste "problem" was understood. The waste could be managed safely by far less expensive methods and is fundamentally not that dangerous to begin with. Such views seem heretical today, but hopefully at some future time logic and reason may prevail.         Jerry