Linear Hypothesis IS the Cause of Publi

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Paul Frame wrote:
 
> Al wrote in part:
> > I rabidly, explosively,and absolutely diagree with those statements. 
> >The LNTH IS the cause of the public fear, or, rather, the corruption of
> >the LNTH idea is the cause.  The LNTH says: "there MAY BE some
> harmful effect of low doses."..... 
<snip>
>  
> I don't pretend to have "facts", relevant to this discussion, either, but let
> me make an observation. Spencer Weart, PhD in physics, Director of the
> American Institute of Physics, author of the book "Nuclear Fear" has
> studied this matter very carefully. 

I saw Weart's book many years ago, and dismissed it as serious. "Images" can
be found of anything, and "radiation images" are more easily found than
earlier "images" about "coal" and railroads, auto's, tall buildings, oil, etc
etc etc. But blaming them for radiation science policy that fosters public
fears is not substantiated. Reading contemporary sources (books and articles
of the 50s-70s shows that "the public" was positive about radiation until the
"fallout" scares and low level radiation were fostered by radiation
scientists. Weart seemed to be rationalizing that "the public" is at fault
(for believing what they are told), absolving the "scientists", including the
control on research and KZ Morgan's congressional and public statement
actions, and fostering the role of Gofman and Sternglass and Morgan as the
"spokesmen" of the public. 

>In his book he attributes the public's
> fear to the accumulated impact of the images that have appeared over
> the last century in the literature, movies, television, etc. Images of
> mutants, nuclear destruction, mad scientists etc. 

"Images" are cheap. The public has been exposed to many without fear, and some 
others that foster fear, from "science". Without the scientist as the source
of confirming those fears, "the public" doesn't care (witness the fact that
people smoke, and hundreds of other accepted hazardous, involuntary conditions 
 --  not mention "images" of drug addiction !) 

>He also points out the
> long term impact of the equally false images created by the nuclear
> industry itself: the plutonium economy, energy too cheap to meter,
> deserts turned into " lands flowing with milk and honey", nuclear
> powered cars, nuclear heated homes etc.
 
What's false? other than the misrepresentation. The "plutonium economy" is
fact. The US decided to suspend reprocessing in 1977, but the world that needs 
clean energy is moving in that direction nevertheless. It is an imperative to
any kind of sustainable economy as we go into the 21st century with massive
energy demand growth in China/Asia, and environmental costs that are actually
killing 10,000s/year while spending $100s billions for the nuclear industry to 
"clean dirt"; its only a matter of time-frame. 

"Too cheap to meter" was stated when nuclear power was expected to be too
costly to compete with coal in the US. It simply reflected an assessment that
high capital costs would control total costs compared to fuel costs to the
point that metering for use by the kWh might not be cost-effective. Today we
get cable TV based on a monthly charge when it could as well have been based
on hourly charges, but sending the signal is "too cheap to meter". 

Desalination plants were seriously considered, including California, and may
yet find a role when the technology is "redeveloped" to be cost-effective and
rational in the nature of the hazards and the costs/benefits as the world
population grows (to 10 billion by 2030, with 20 cities exceeding 10 million
population; when economic development of the lower 60% of the world population 
is massive, especially in energy and food demand.) 

Can you tell me what serious consideration was given to "cars" and "homes"? 
Let's see: if I store a Cs thimble in a below grade well, I'll run a heat pump 
to the house!  :-) 

> Nowhere does Weart, as far as I can tell, attribute any importance to the
> issue of presumed risks at low levels. In his view, it would seem that the
> public's fear is based on emotion, period. 

The public emotion is only based on the fictional fear of "any radiation"
supported by the government agencies and their science community (since FDA
used Eben Byers to get regulatory authority for radium and medical devices,
but never treated it as an "overdose" but went for the public fear factor to
get "public support". Then never studies the 10,000s of people who could
assess radium impact. (Robley Evans, and others didn't get support til after
WWII when the AEC went into assessing occupational exposure - then didn't want 
to hear the results, especially at Oak Ridge. My conversations in 1972-73
confimed research bias, including the AEC discussions that prevented
publication and continuation of Norm Frigerio's plans on the AEC contract for
the "Argonne Radiological Impact Program". Drop that hot potato! 

>In my view, if you pin your
> hopes for reviving the "nuclear business" on the elimination of the LNT
> concept,  you are living in a fantasy world.  

It is the only reason people fear nuclear technologies, and the only reason
they believe it is that the "radiation science" establishment feed it to them, 
including massive public relations campaigns (push junk science like the Wing
work and EPA's uranium miner projections to NPR and $100Ms of "advertising"
and publications; along with $100 million fostering public fear just at
Hanford. People die as a direct result. 

People die from refusing medical diagnosis and treatment, people die from
mining/transporting/burning coal, and they lose many beneficial and
potentially economic nuclear and radiation applications because they are made
"uneconomic" (like tritium exit signs and San Onofre); along with $100Bs in
"public health resources" being wasted when it costs $4000/yr to provide
health insurance to a family. What benefit does the nation get from $4000
spent for radiation monitoring and control? Not to mention the horendous
direct cost to wasting resources in the third world! 

> Paul Frame

Thanks Paul.

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