Re[2]: Frontline Comment

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.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. 

If you had witnessed EPA's presentation at NRC on Monday afternoon, and
consider hundreds of other actions like Sinclair's actions to reject NRC's 10
mr/yr, and the program at Hanford fostering public fear, and EPA's radon
campaign which funds dozens of orgs to campaign that radon is killing babies,
you would realize that the source is only government. Don't blame the media
for reporting the "truth" as presented. They add a negative tone, but they are 
not the real enemy of nuclear technology. 


>      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?
> 
> 
>