RE: Frontline

["Lamothe, Emelie" <lamothee@aecl.ca>]

Mr. Rozental

I fully agree with your comment.  It is a message that I repeat over and
over with other colleagues and PR-types.  

We don't all have the same "techno-babble".  I can hammer facts and
statistics until the cows come home- heck, it doesn't work with my kids,
why should it work with the public.  And believe me, the public is not
dumb. 

 I believe that by talking to people using non-scientific language,
sharing values and concerns, in short, emphasizing the human side of the
industry, we give the public greater reason to maintain the industry, in
all its aspects.

Emelie Lamothe
lamothee@aecl.ca

>----------
>From: 	J. J. Rozental[SMTP:josrozen@netmedia.net.il]
>Sent: 	Friday, April 25, 1997 1:40 PM
>To: 	Multiple recipients of list
>Subject: 	Frontline 
>
>We do not have the right to shake our heads at the people who were freighted
>to the point of hysteria  and panic, when they found themselves helpless,
>facing dangers unknown to them. The fact that it is not possible to see,
>feel, hear or smell radioactivity, makes nuclear energy a very difficult
>science for the art  of communication. 
>How many among the society in the world, considering developed and
>developing countries, know how really to access the danger of radiation? --
>How many were afraid and worried in their ignorance? -- And still they are.
>What  is the reaction of the more or less ignorant population when read  the
>two following   topics:
>
>1 -  The effects of  large doses of radiation on human health are well
>understood and such doses are clearly hazardous;
>
>2 - The low doses delivered over period of months or years provoke   risks
>of malignant diseases, as leukemia or  cancer that may appear years or
>decades after exposure. 
>
>	I have being working in nuclear energy for more than 35 years and until now
>I feel that  the citizens of many countries do not believe in the
>Authorities they should to believe. There are not enough mediators to link
>knowledgeable expert opinion and the more or less ignorant population.
>
>How people can understand expressions like Becquerel, Sievert, Stochastic,
>Non-Stochastic, deterministic, probabilistic and others unusual words to the
>population. 
>One day, in Goiania, managing the Radiological accident, one journalist
>asked me if the victims were considered radioactive waste, and be buried at
>the repository site,  since the population reaction was against to accept
>the bodies to be buried in the cemetery. On this question I spent about half
>hour explaining. When I finished, he told me: I understood however, frankly
>speaking, Competent Authorithy should to understand the people's panic.
>Unfortunately for the  population nuclear communications are expressed by
>means of  abstract words.
>
>I replied to him: if nuclear communications are expressed by means of
>abstract words, it is your obligation to inform to the Competent Authority
>through the press, however, should be noted at this point  that is also  the
>task of the journalist media to acquaint the public with the scientific
>world, without distorting the contents and messages. 
>
> Now going to just one  of the conclusions of the "One Decade After
>Chernobyl"  we can learn from its psychological consequences:
>
>"The psychological effects of the Chernobyl accident resulted from the lack
>of public information, particularly immediately after the accident, the
>stress and trauma of relocation, the braking of social ties, and the fear
>that any radiation exposure is damaging and could damage people's health and
>their children's health in the future. It is understandable that people who
>were not told the truth for several years after the accident continue to be
>skeptical of official statements and to believe that illnesses of all kinds
>that now seem more prevalent must be due to radiation. The distress caused
>by this misperception of radiation is extremely harmful to people"
>
>So many organization problems, in the past and still in the present, so many
>difficulty to cross over, lack of international information about recent
>accidents with fatalities,  altogether exaggerate the emotions beyond the
>reasoble, and this is an appetizing dish for anti-nuke.
>
>Finally, the last  International Basic Safety Standards for Protection
>against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources, Safety
>Series I-115, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY - IAEA, 1994 introduced the
>concept of Safety Culture, "The assembly of characteristics and attitudes in
>organizations and individuals which establishes that, as an overriding
>priority, protection and safety issues receive the attention warranted by
>their significance".
>
>I suggest an  International Conference on "Safety Culture and
>Responsibilities"
>Main subjects:
>Safety Culture and Human Behavior
>Safety Culture and Lessons Learned
>Safety Culture and Psychological Experience Gained 
>Safety Culture and Regulators
>Safety Culture and Supporting Organizations
>Safety Culture and Information Dissemination
>Safety Culture and Media
>		
>No discussion on technical aspects. It became clear that the fundamental
>problems are people-related problems and not equipment problems. (Exclusion
>Countries of the Former Soviet Union), where equipment are problems.
>
>J. J. Rozental
>Consultant, Radiation Safety and Regulation
>for Developing Countries
>
>