Psychological Impact

["J. J. Rozental" <josrozen@netmedia.net.il>]

To xat@inel.gov (Alden Tschaeche)
Dear Al, tank you for your comment:

I would like also to add  some addendum:

Your comment:

"I would have no qualms about living in a house, driving a car every day,
having a fence, etc. that was made of recycled material from a power
reactor.  There are international standards developed or being developed
that specify the amount of radioactive material that can be in such
recycled material.   If those standards are followed, the doses to me,
or to any member of the public, from such material would be negligible
and certainly safe."
====
Yes, there are international standards being developed. To avoid regulatory
problems, clearance levels should not be greater than the prescribed levels
for exemption from regulatory control. 

If  professional of nuclear field, as your case,   accept of  living in
buildings and driving motor cars made with products of recycled material
from a power reactor it will be beneficial  also for the   acceptance of the
population. However,  please, my question was extensively to the opinion of
the family. The family's opinion weighs more than the professional.  If you
could be so kind also to express those  opinions, however, not answering  by
your felling,  but asking  individually for each member of the  family.

This is also a very interesting future research,   in view that some people
will have, in a near future, the opportunity of combing three types of very
low radiation together, living in such  building/house, i.e., combining
natural radioactivity  plus artificial by means of unconditional clearance
levels  plus some exempted smoke detector, telephone dials, watch...

However, I am  not only considering the American  fellows living with their
own power reactor recycled material, or U.K., Sweden, Russian Federation,
Japan, Germany, France, Canada.  I am  considering the  general population
as whole, does not matter where they live, in USA or in any other country,
but specially those from developing countries. I wrote in the first message:
"The polemic controversy  will arise on  the population psychological
impact, due the reuse of the recycling materials, especially materials being
transferred between countries."

It isn't  easy population acceptance on what seems to the them similar of
accepting  waste disposal. Do you remember the controversy on  powder milk
and meat exported from some Europe's countries after Chernobyl?  It was a
tragic social/economical affair. Even considering the approved standards in
that opportunity for  (Cs-134 + Cs-137) unrestricted food releasing, 370
Bq/Kg. Many developing countries (and even developed) did not accepted such
products, in this also including also countries with  poverty. Tons of such
product were incinerated after many years in refrigerator, and the material
was used as fertilizer....The idea of milk and meat donation,  in  that
opportunity,  was calamitous, people having little  to eat didn't accept
such food, what was assumed to them feeling as guinea-pig, taking into
account theirs perception of risk.

Nuclear  communication, specially involving  public sensibility needs  a
high degree of perceptiveness.  It  is very critical the words, and the way
to express. We, technical professional in the nuclear field, do not know how
to get the perception of the general population. Our oral written
communication is made  by means of abstract jargons for the population. It
is very difficult for us (nuclear)   to  dissociate from  our mentally what
appear obvious for us,  considering  what it is very difficult  to the
(uneducated) mentality of the general population. Several times when
nuclears' explain, internally they think: "It is very simple, how they can't
understand on what I am  talking about?....There are  for the General
Population  a large path in terms of nuclear unacceptable or negligible.

Finally another important stress factor is the loss of trust of the
population in the scientific, medical and political authorities. Only
transparency, capability of understanding sentiment,  and progressive
restoration of credibility will renew confidence.

J. J. Rozental <josrozen@netmedia.net.il>
Consultant, Radiation Safety & Regulation
for developing country, Israel