Re[2]: Frontline Comment

[DREHA@ccmail.ceco.com]

     I would agree that government policy and over-regulation have been a 
     driving factor in making nuclear power nonviable economically.
     
     But it is the media's choice of what to report, and HOW to report it 
     that is driving the public perception of nuclear power. 
     
     The liberal media has an agenda, and they take any opportunity they 
     see to promote it. If you need an example, look at gun control and the 
     choice of stories they media chooses to present. Or my personal 
     favorite, presidential campaigns. In the Bush/Clinton campaign, the 
     newspapers would print front-page pictures of both candidates. Clinton 
     would be smiling and kissing babies, Bush would be frowning or 
     tripping down Air Force One's stairs.
     
     Lets recognize the media for what they are, or more importantly - what 
     they have become.
     
     
     Harry Anagnostopoulos
     Dresden Station
     
     
     **********************************************************************
     These rantings are mine and do not represent any opinion of my 
     employer, etc.... 
     


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Frontline Comment
Author:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at INTERNET
Date:    4/23/97 12:45 PM


It was erroneous and misleading for the show to blame the media. Fear of 
radiation is the result of extreme gov't regulatory and program positions. The 
media only reports them. 
     
Until the HPS Position Statement that the data shows no justification to 
calculate risks below 5 rem/year, the only gov't position is that any 
radiation is harmful. EPA stated Monday afternoon in an open meeting with the 
NRC that NRCs standards would cause (something like) a 1 in 250 additional 
cancers over the EPA standards. NCRP and BEIR are committed to foster this 
perception in the absense of receiving a dose of scientific integrity. 
Richardson for the EPA, at the Risk Conference in Washington last week, said 
again that the science would make no difference, EPA will not abandon 
linearity. EPA will continue to misrepresent the radon data (its own data, not 
just Bernie Cohen's more rigorous, comprehensive, and uncontroverted analysis) 
in order to promulgate fear of radiation, including the secret and 
unscientific promulgation of the BEIR VI report now going on. 
     
DOE suppressed the evidence of the Shipyard Workers Study, including its 
inclusion in the IARC study; and Hanford gets $100 million on "dose 
reconstruction" and "health effects research" from the release of (8-day) 
I-131 designed with a "public outreach program" with the sole purposeof 
promulgating public fear. After all, Hanford gets $1.5 Billion/year to "clean 
up" the site. They tell the Congress that they are protecting Oregon, without 
pointing out that r'vty down the river is millions of times less than the 
operating site, and billions of times less than natural r'vty down the river. 
     
Don't blame the media for simply reporting what our appointed gov't officials 
and "scientists" tell them is truth. 
     
If you want to bash ignorance, we can start closer to home :-)
     
Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com
     
> This show demonstrated the ignorance of the general public in regards to 
> radiation safety, and more importantly the POWER of that ignorance.  In 
> most cases it would seem to be a "fear of the unknown".  The media has
> produced this deeply embedded fear of nuclear technology, as "EXPERTS" in 
> the field, I believe it is our responsibility to eradicate those fears
> through education.
> 
> Just my unsolicited opinion,
> 
> Jonathan Dyer
> Radiation Safety Specialist
> Brown University
> 
> >I couldn't believe the woman who was anti-nuclear stating that "natural" 
> >radiation wasn't the problem, it was the "manmade" stuff that she was
> >concerned about.
> >
> >How many more of them are out there who don't understand?