Re[2]: Why nuclear is a "no-win" in the USA

[Ron_Dobey_at_MU-EHS-PO1@ext.missouri.edu]

Well said!  Public perception and "their" frame of reference are keys to gaining
an understanding of any issue/problem, our frame of reference is quite different
from the publics regarding nuclear issues.  While it seems clear to those of us 
in the Health Physics community that the risk benefit tradeoffs of nuclear power
are very positive, this doesn't seem to matter to the general public.  Some or 
much of this is due to the massive disinformation and misinformation doled out 
by the anti-nukes.  Some is due to the lack of a proactive stance by the nuclear
industry in general, while some is due to a great distrust of the federal 
government and the weapons program going back to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  I 
believe what will matter in the final analysis is when, through lack of 
foresight and long range planning, there are energy shortages.  If nuclear is 
still a viable technology/option and has not been placed on the trash heap of 
society, people won't care where their electricity comes from as long as they 
can get it, use the conveniences that electricity brings to them, and bitch 
about their electric bills.  

These are my opinions, I stick by them, flame me if you want! 

Ron Dobey, CHP
University of Missouri-Columbia
ehsron@muccmail.missouri.edu
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Why nuclear is a "no-win" in the USA
Author:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at internet-ext
Date:    9/4/97 7:40 AM


     
     
    In following this thread, I am reminded of an editorial in an 
    automotive magazine from the early 1980's.
     
    During the time when that industry was struggling with a 
    disgruntled consumer base, there was a conference on 'Quality'.  
    One speaker was pointing out that his company had greatly improved 
    their quality by all available metrics - doors were fitting 
    better, engines met tighter tolerences, there were lower rejection 
    rates at final inspections, etc.  However, the cars were still not 
    selling.  The speaker concluded that the public had the wrong 
    perception of quality, and that industry needed to 'educate' the 
    public as to what it really was.
     
    The author of the editorial then pointed out that while the 
    speaker's points were correct about the improved manufacturing 
    techniques, it was not a matter of perception but a matter of 
    definition that caused the conflict.  The consumer's definition of 
    quality was different - their definition included such 
    considerations as currentness of design, environmental 
    compatability, appropriateness to modern lifestyles, ease of 
    operation and maintenance, corporate responsiveness to customer 
    concerns, reliability, etc.  The public's perception was their 
    reality, and none of the industry's metrics adequately captured 
    these concepts.
     
    Perhaps there is a similar problem in our industry.  We use 
    quantitative metrics to measure our 'product', the safety of our 
    workers and the public.  We count rem and Curies (oops, I mean 
    sieverts and bequerel), we calculate latent cancers and genetic 
    defects, and compare ourselves to other societal risks.  But the 
    public seems to be asking a different question:  "is there anybody 
    out there recognizing and responding to my concern, and should I 
    trust them?"  
     
    I agree completely with Bill Lipton and Sandy Perle.  We fail the 
    public and our workers when we discount their perceptions and 
    concerns because we 'know' the real risk, and have decided that 
    there is not a problem.  The public understands risk; they 
    understand reasonableness.  But what they understand most of all 
    is when they are getting the 'cold shoulder' or the 'brush-off'.
     
    There are many examples where we are starting to rebuild the 
    relationship, but there are equally as many where we still have 
    not 'gotten it'.  The automotive industry seems to have recovered 
    from their problems, perhaps there are some lessons there for us.
     
    Doug Minnema, CHP
    Defense Programs
    Department of Energy
    <Douglas.Minnema@dp.doe.gov>
     
    what few thoughts i have are truly my own.