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

[Douglas.Minnema@dp.doe.gov]

Message authorized by:
    : jgoody@cris.com_at_internet at x400PO
    
    Jim,
    
    I will not try to defend, question, or criticize the proposed 
    plan.  Actually, I am not even sure where the number you quote 
    comes from.  However, this does return us to the original point of 
    my message.  It is the role of DOE to respond to the desires of 
    the Administration, the Congress, and ultimately the American 
    public.  Those desires are often based upon the same differences 
    in perceptions and realities that we have been discussing.  The 
    Department cannot arbitrarily establish and fund such an effort 
    without the initiation of the Administration and approval of the 
    Congress, and it is to their reality that we must respond.
    
    There are legitimate problems out there that must be addressed, 
    along with the 'publically perceived' problems.  To oversimplify 
    such problems and categorize them all as 'irresponsible' feeds 
    into the same mindset that we have all been fighting.
    
    We in this profession are caught in a vicious circle.  We have 
    lost the trust of our constituents, and need to regain it.  The 
    'easy' way has always been to buy it back, but the public is 
    growing very wary of that approach, as your comments reflect. But 
    if we just tell them to trust us, there is no concern, where are 
    we?
    
    
    Doug Minnema, chp
    Defense Programs
    Department of Energy
    <Douglas.Minnema@dp.doe.gov>
    
    what few thoughts i have are truly my own.


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Why nuclear is a "no-win" in the USA
Author:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu_at_internet at x400PO
Date:    9/4/97 11:10 AM

    Doug Minnema, CHP
    Defense Programs
    Department of Energy
    <Douglas.Minnema@dp.doe.gov>
    
   Doug, Granted we have a communication problem with the general public.
The problem is that we are letting this drive us to do things that don't 
make sense.  It seems iresponsible to me for you guys in DOE to develop and 
encourage a battle plan to spend $220 BILLION on a publically percieved 
problem when we have so many actual problems that need solving.
    
     On the enviroinmental front, I would suggest the parks service could
better use these dollars to restore our national parks;  of course there's 
education, helath, Brookhaven ...
    
Jim
    
James R. Goodgame
Radiation Engineering & Physics
Certified Radiological Physicists
Charleston, SC
http//www.sentinelnode.com