Re: WIPP shipment through Albq. NM

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 1/14/2004 11:25:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, BLHamrick@AOL.COM writes:



>In a message dated 1/14/2004 5:09:35 AM Pacific Standard Time, 

>liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM writes:

>There are just enough real events to cause mistrust of the "experts."  If we 

>are to survive, we should concentrate less on debates and more on aggressively 

>fixing actual and potential problems.

>

>I honestly don't believe it is this simple.  There is one particular person 

>in California who is at the forefront of most of the anti-nuclear action here.  

>As far as I can tell, he has no other employment, but to run his non-profit 

>organization, opposing (essentially) all things nuclear.  He is basically an 

>extremely effective motivational speaker, seemingly not inclined to be 

>constrained by the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  In fact, as an 

>aside, there is an old Irish saying that comes to mind when I hear him speak:

>

>"He cherishes the truth so much, he uses it only sparingly."  Ah, but I 

>digress...

>

(snip)



I thoroughly endorse Barbara's suggestion, and she has stated it beautifully.  I would only like to add the following:



I do not believe the sincerity of the twin mantras of "I really don't understand radiation and I am so scared and skeptical of the experts" and "If you only said it in language I understand, everything would be OK" because they are deliberate, clever, cynical constructs of professional antinuclear activists in a campaign to kill the entire nuclear endeavor.  It's not a conspiracy, but a political campaign, and has been remarkably effective.  I think most of the people who make anti-nuclear statements at public meetings are well aware that they are part of a political campaign and know that political statements are exaggerations, often to the extent of shading and distorting the truth.  It's easy to say anything, if you think to youself "hey this is politics and this is what politicians do" and of course, it IS what politicians do.  The campaign succeeds because many radiation professionals simply don't expect this sort of political campaign.



I saw this repeatedly when I was an environmental activist.  During the campaign to pass the 1970 Clean Air Act, we were advised by a member of Congress, who supported the Act, that we should harp on the  adverse health effects of air pollution and simplify our statements; e.g. don't point out that air pollution episodes like Donora resulted in a number of excess deaths, usually of people who had respiratory problems anyway; just say that "air pollution kills." (By the way, this is one reason why I don't believe EPA's projection of deaths from coal-burning power plant emissions.  The other reason is that the projection is based on applying the LNT to pollutants that have well-known and well-understood thresholds of effect, as well as on poor epidemiology).



In sum, we can't take these protestations of innocent victimhood and confusion at face value, and we should quit pandering to them.  



Ruth

-- 

Ruth F. Weiner

ruthweiner@aol.com

505-856-5011

(o)505-284-8406

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

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/