Re: Nuclear Reactions program

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

> Bias: Don't ask people who depend on Nuclear Power (for a living and for
> " energetic survival") what they think of nuclear energy ! We all know
> that nuclear industry pays better (at least it is true for engineers)
> Why someone would be complaining  about their bread and butter ? OK the
> "nice" and I-sure- don't- work- in- the- Nuclear- Plant  lady was a
> symbol of "Jane Public" but Iscincerily think that anyone in a city with
> a big industry will cope with minor inconvenients (smells, visual
> pollution etc.)
> 
> Here in Quebec Canada, we only have one commercial powerplant that is
> located in a heavy industrial site (with all kind of "nasty" chemical
> plants) Almost all the people who work on the industrial site (probably
> 2/3 of the nearby city) fear most a chlorine or peroxyde catastrophy
> then any event from the CANDU  reactor. Of course you may still find
> some people hunting for 5 leaves clovers or ready to swear that they saw
> a two headed cow eating the 5 leaves clovers near the exclusion zone...
> 
> Other Bias: People who were against nuclear energy didn't have any time
> to bring a scientific argument (if any...). We only had common fear of
> nuclear energy (panelists) or extremists (the now famous lady who don't
> fear radon...any dose I understood). Is it another conspiracy of
> Pro-Nukes ?  :-)
> 
> Stephane Jean-Francois, Phys. Eng.
> RSO
> Merck Frosst Canada
> stephane_jeanfrancois@merck.com
>  ----------

Ahh..  I understand. And I agree. Both these biases exist in the program.
About France, not a substantial bias. The US has a lot of the same local
support. But we never see it on TV :-)   Clearly the program had a "point of
view", re Rhodes' book which has much more substance than can be provided in
an hour. 

OTOH, we live with a lot of bias in most such programs, but usually somewhat
more extreme, on "the other side". We need to look at "balance" in a larger
context, not within one show, but within the whole public exposure to the
subject. It would be pretty hopeless if we accept that we can't balance the
debate, but must produce only neutral results. When the "weight" of the case
has a large gorilla on one end of the teeter-totter, the public can't be
informed by limiting brief presentations to a small monkey, who must sit in
the middle of the teeter-totter. 

Then again, nuclear technology is imperative to succeeding in the 21st century 
without resource wars and famine, and environmental sustainability in a world
growing by the US population every 3 years, enormously compounded by dramatic, 
real, economic growth/resource demands in the larger third world population. 

This program only went a very small way to reflecting the nature of the true
debate that must be engaged. It failed to address the real hard-data on the
context of Pu, and waste, and a number of other elements. It was pretty timid
in presenting the scientific data on a number of these critical substantive
subjects. It went too far in treating primarily the "public perception" and 
acceptance aspects. 

And you're still right that the bias existed in the particulars.

Thanks.

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

=============================

> From: JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Re: Nuclear Reactions program
> Date:  April 23, 1997 13:49
> 
> > The public need to see that" nuclear" sounds good with "medicine" and
> > not only with "reactors"... We do use nuclear energy to find treatments
> > for AIDS, Asthma, Heart Diseases...
> 
> Amen!
> 
> > The comparison with France was interesting but maybe a little bit
> > biased...
> 
> Can you explain the "bias" that you perceive?
> 
> > Stephane Jean-Francois, Phys. Eng.
> > RSO
> > Merck Frosst Canada
> > stephane_jeanfrancois@merck.com
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Regards, Jim Muckerheide
> jmuckerheide@delphi.com