Re: Radiophobia

[Doug Turner <turners@earthlink.net>]

Eric,

Carl Sagan in Broca's Brain states, " The most effective agents to
communicate science to the public are television, motion pictures and
newspapers- where the science offerings are often dreary, inaccurate,
ponderous, grossly caricatured ( as with much Saturday morning commercial
television programing for children) hostile to science".  I couldn't agree
more.  Most children spend more time in front of the boob tube than in the
classroom.  As an industry, we need to get our message to where people will
watch and listen to it- television.  The only dramatic movies are
antinuclear, and even the newspaper efforts are mainly focused at educating
reporters and getting factual errors corrected ( retractions don't get
published on the front page but section z page 9).

We are failing miserably at educating the public, and while teching grade
school children about nuclear power is generally beneficial I believe it
falls far short of what is required if we want to retain a viable nuclear
industry - and most people are unaware of technical publications ( it would
be intersting to see the volume printed to get an idea of the audience
reached).  

I believe the solution is a pronuclear TV program and a few good movies.
Some of the utilities already have professional quality studios that could
be put to use at off hours at very little additional expense. 

Good Luck,

Doug Turner <turners@ earthlink.net>

At 03:38 PM 10/10/96 -0500, you wrote:
>     I respectfully disagree with Dave Scherer's premises.  Radiation 
>     is not perceived in the same light by the public as chemical 
>     agents, nor is radiation given the break of: "tiny-amount => tiny 
>     risk" concept as are most chemicals (isn't this the linear, 
>     no-threshold hypothesis?).  Take a look at the charts on pages 
>     62-63 of the UN publication "Radiation: Doses, Effects,Risks"  (a 
>     truly excellent booklet for the layperson).  Those charts show 
>     that the public (represented by students, women and businessmen) 
>     view radiation from nuclear power as having the highest risk.  
>     X-rays are lower on the scale, perhaps because X-rays are more 
>     familiar and have a known medical benefit.  Pesticides (closest 
>     risk to "chemicals") are ranked as being significantly lower 
>     risks than nuclear power by women and businessmen (but still 
>     pretty high by students - what are we teaching?)   I would 
>     conclude from this study that radiation, at least that from 
>     nuclear power, is perceived as being a significantly greater risk 
>     than chemicals or most other activities.  Furthermore, most 
>     people simply say that chemicals in tiny amounts pose little or 
>     no risk, but radiation is to be avoided.  Everyone knows the hero 
>     in the movie takes a little arsenic for years to become immune to 
>     its effects, but deliberate exposure to radiation - no way.
>     
>     Opinion:  and this is only worth the electrons that provide it to 
>     you, I agree with those who cite the past 30 or 40 years of 
>     images as the basis for public fear.  With radiation 
>     characterized as the means to create mutants and monsters in 
>     movies and TV, fanned by a very effective anti-nuclear industry 
>     which perpetuates the "one atom can kill" concept (for their own 
>     livelihood), we're stuck with a couple of hundred million people 
>     who believe any radiation is bad, at any level.   Solution: more 
>     education from grade school up on all manner of risk 
>     communication; and more openness on what we do and how 
>     (acknowledge the outrage factor).
>     
>     Down from that soapbox,...   and disclaimed, of course....
>     
>     Eric Goldin
>     goldinem@songs.sce.com
>
>
>
>