Re: Nuclear no-wins, etc. -Reply

[Jeff Eichorst <myself@lanl.gov>]

Let us not forget that understanding the publics concern is vital to fixing
the communication gaps that exists.  However, I believe that getting
outraged with the public does not help to educate them of what the real
hazards are.  Granted we need to aggressively address the problems that
allowed the leak to go undetected, fire the folks if necessary, but if we do
it in an "outragous" fashion, we only add fuel to the publics fire and
promote the concerns that they have of being exposed to a real health risk.
Listen to them and try to communicate to them that you understand what they
are feeling.  Only then will they open up and beging to listen to us.
Getting all excited and jumping up and down with them will only lead them to
believe that they have been right all along.




At 11:05 AM 9/5/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Regarding :
>
>>The issue is not that the the plume went undetected.  Everyone agrees that
>>that is not good.  The question is whether such a deficiency warrants a
>>procedure change, or surveillance periodicity revision, or maybe better
>
>There is some missed communication here.  Yes, everyone agrees that missing
>detection of the plume is not good.  However, I think that that is
precisely what drives
>the public crazy.  It is the primary question they are interested in.  How
Brookhaven
>deals with the detection, policies, plume, and the escape path can wait for
a later
>issue.  They want to know "HOW DID IT MISS A LEAK FOR 10 YEARS?" (emphasis
>added.)  We try to regulate down to pCi amounts of material and here is 6
Trillion
>times that amount that isn't detected for , What, 10 years?  Who do you
trust?  
>
>I think as a regulator that some procedure, frequency, or instrumentation
needs to
>change and some wrists need to be smacked.  
>
>As the public "I" am outraged that this amount got out and went undetected
(or even
>worse, unreported, see Japan) and "I" don't trust any of the responsible
parties.  It is
>no suprise that politicians are considering a shut down as a sop to their
constituents.
> There is radiation in the groundwater and there are wells in the area.
Most of the
>public does not understand groundwater hydrology or separation of aquafers.
This is
>an outrage situation and throwing money at it (or the equivalent blowoff of
"It's a
>harmless amount") only increases the outrage.  Only after the outrage is
addressed
>will the public start accepting money or facts as an appeasment.
>
>Zack Clayton
>zack.clayton@epa.state.oh.us
>
>These are my thoughts and don't reflect any official position.
>
>
Jeff Eichorst
Occurrence Investigator
Los Alamos National Laboratory
ESH-7, MS K999, Los Alamos, NM 87545
505.665-6980		505.665-6977 fax
505.996-1117 digital pager,	myself@lanl.gov

"Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth."
	- JFK