Trintiy Site as Positive PR?? -Reply

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Hi Todd,

I would disagree with this.

> I agree with Gary Schroeder.  I believe that if I visited Trinity and saw demons
> trations of routine
> uses of rad materials my impression would be trivialization of a deeply affectin
> g experience. 
> And I would think that "non-rad industry" members of the public would end up mak
> ing a
> connection between the uses of rad materials and weapons, which is definitely no
> t a good
> thing (nor true, to say the least!)
> 
> Todd Jackson
> NRC Region I
> tjj@nrc.gov
> 
> Personal opinion, not NRC or anyone else, etc.

This seems to reflect gov't/activist mindset that is generally not shared by
the general public. Most people don't have these 'burdens'. They accept atomic 
weapons, with the dozens or hundreds of film clips of shots they have seen
over the years, as real, direct, practical, and mostly "necessary"; and
generally responsible for bringing and keeping the peace, and winning the cold 
war, even when they are convinced that the military-industrial complex overdid 
it and wasted a lot of $$. 

There is not a lot of naval-gazing and "soul-searching", as evidenced by the
favorable media and public support to the recent plaque honoring Truman's use
of the bomb at the Truman Library, and the adverse reaction to this kind of
false 'morality play' pushed by 'deep-thinking' revisionist historians at the
Enola Gay exhibit at the Smithsonian, and other public response experiences. 

Most people who think about it, I expect in a factual presentation at Trinity
Site, easily put weapons in the spectrum of things nuclear and radiation,
including medicine and radiography. We do ourselves, and radiation/nuclear
science and technology a disservice, and are the direct cause of much public
ambivalence, by fostering these kinds of distinctions and false moral
dilemmas. 

Why would we want to distinguish between weapons and other uses of rad
materials as either a technical or a moral issue, which is just being
dishonest (and which has done us no good, and a lot of harm, in public
acceptance the last 30 years). Of course it's worth noting that, in the final
analysis, the 35,000 witnesses of above-ground weapons tests show no evidence
of adverse health effects of their rad exposure, as with radiologists and
nuclear medicine and radiology patients. If we tell the simple truth, the
fears being fostered about low level radiation and things nuclear can be
addressed. 

I would go with the actual experience of those knowledgeable people who are
doing the tours with the real public as witnesses, rather than an unfounded
feeling about what "they" (the public) think. I think we can also listen to
our many college students talking about things nuclear with high school
students about how they address these issues and what the reaction is (in
cases where the morality play isn't played up). 

We are more to blame for the public policy problem than the "anti's" when we
lay these false burdens on our own technology, analyses, and public messages. 

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com
Radiation, Science, and Health, Inc