Trintiy Site as Positive PR?? -Reply -R

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Hi Todd,

I wasn't referring to "activists" as myself, but rather the "activist" members 
of "the public" who do have these great moral problems, which are shared and
reinforced by our own approach to these matters. (As the Mass. State Nuclear
Engineer I deal with these "publics" directly and extensively all the time;
most recently last week at the Governor's Advisory Council on Rad Protection
where several activist groups were represented and made presentations, with
general good intent, concerns and objectives - we're not talking about people
chaining themselves to the gates here.) 

The general public however does not share their questioning the relation, and
weapons are not and should not be arbitrarily distinguished from the scope of
sources of nuclear technologies and radiation, without unnecessarily falling
into the quandary that you reflect here. (This is not intended to be specific
to the low-level radiation issue, but rather the entire framework of nuclear
science and technology as presented to the public, which of course includes
the issue that would have personal concern to the general public, radiation
exposure risks. To know that the exposed military persons at Trinity and the
Nevada test site and the Pacific, perhaps even the one death in the 23
Japanese fishermen on the Lucky Dragon, with the remainder healthy after 25
years except for 2 non-rad-related deaths (1 accident) 25 years later, and
even that the Japanese survivors, have no adverse health effects consequences
of their exposures except for the small group exposed to high doses, and to
put that in the only personal context most people have with radiation in
context of normal exposures from nuclear medicine and radiology, and
applications such as radiography, well-loggers, nuclear power plant workers,
and natural radioactivity and radiation sources, is about the most justified,
factual, objective, significant, unbiased, treeatment of the subject that can
be presented to a general public audience.) 

> 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% gov
> government work history, so my mindset is only partial gov't.  I too talk to
"the public", 

It wasn't personal, it reflects statements by many in our profession because
of our relationship to the government policy mindset about "radiation", not
personal jobs; combined with inflence by the "activist public" that most of us 
see because they are the ones who participate. It is just a mistake to think
they represent the general public and the good that can be done when you deal
with them rather than the 'activists'. 

> as this is available
> to all, even if we are not "activists" such as yourself.  The variety of opinion
> s in the minds of
> the individuals in the public will be perceived in different ways by "us" (you a
> nd I).   And we
> each express our personal view of what we heard the public say. 

I just suggest that you broaden your view if that is what/all you are hearing.
 
> I do feel very strongly that nuclear weapons are perceived differently than othe
> r uses of
> radioactive materials.  The benefits from non-weapons use are immediately eviden
> t, 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.  

If there is different treatment, then that is part of our problem.

> Use of nuclear weapons is not an issue of low level radiation exposure, and to i
> mply such is
> terribly misleading to "the public" .  

Most exposure to nuclear weapons radiation is low level, and there are 100,000 
persons in that "database" that is the unwarranted foundation of all our false 
fears and rules. 

To me, teaching about how innocuous low l
> evels 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.

Since radiation exposure is the central issue for a member of the public, who
is likely not to share your interest in physics, you should reorient your
consideration of who you are talking to and what their interests are, along
with the central issues affecting our profession and the background to public
understanding and public policies that prevent the development of our nuclear
sciences and technologies across the board, along with massive public waste of 
resources for no public benefit. See eg, Marvin Goldman's HPS President
editorial in the Feb 95 HPS Newsletter about spending $Trillion to clean up
our atomic backyard for negligible public health benefit. This is important,
not "physics", to the benefit of mankind and society, that is refusing the
benefits because of false public perceptions and policies, and perhaps in
helping a person made fearful of radiation by our false policies accept a
nuclear medicine procedure that could have real benefits to themselves or
their children. Let's not ignore a teachable moment that can never be filtered 
thru the media by layering our values on the presentation of factual info
about whether weapons and weapon radiation etc are "moral" rather than simply
exist and we have a factual context of history and artifacts to present. 

> Todd Jackson
> tjj@nrc.gov
> 
> These are personal opinions only, not the official mindset of NRC or anybody els
> e.

Thanks.

Regards, Jim