Trintiy Site as Positive PR?? -Reply -Reply

[Todd Jackson <TJJ@nrc.gov>]

Jim Muckerheide wrote in part:
This seems to reflect gov't/activist mindset that is generally not shared by the general
public.>>

Sorry to dissappoint but my experience is about 60% private industry and 40% government
work history, so my mindset is only partial gov't.  I too talk to "the public", as this is available
to all, even if we are not "activists" such as yourself.  The variety of opinions in the minds of
the individuals in the public will be perceived in different ways by "us" (you and I).   And we
each express our personal view of what we heard the public say. 

I do feel very strongly that nuclear weapons are perceived differently than other uses of
radioactive materials.  The benefits from non-weapons use are immediately evident, while
weapons provide at best a political benefit that is sometimes very difficult to appreciate.  I don't
think we should view weapons casually in any way.  

Use of nuclear weapons is not an issue of low level radiation exposure, and to imply such is
terribly misleading to "the public" .  To me, teaching about how innocuous low levels of
exposure can be, at Trinity, seems trite, but that is how I would receive it.  A focus on the
facts of the physics of radiation, what it is and so on, would be preferable to me as the
educational vehicle in that context.  No question that such a unique place could invoke strong
learning connections.

Todd Jackson
tjj@nrc.gov

These are personal opinions only, not the official mindset of NRC or anybody else.