Re: Media Response - Take initiative

[ARDeAngelo@aol.com]

The health physics community does have a perspective that will sell 
newspapers.  That perspective is emphasizing the cost side when comparing the 
cost-benefit of the alternatives to nuclear energy and radioisotope usage.

In the context of radioisotope usage, the benefit is obviously in lives 
saved.  In the context of nuclear energy the benefit is in dollars saved and 
minimum environmental impact.  A clear line needs to be drawn in the public's 
mind that helps them differentiate between hypothetical negative impacts and 
measurable negative impacts. 

Tha anti-nuclear advocates have the advantage in that they are playing to the 
"fear of the unknown."  This is a strong negative motivator - - and they know 
that.  Another strong motivator for people is having their money taxed away 
for wasteful and overconservative public expenses (i.e., cleanup of soil to 
excessively low clearance levels) or a higher net harm (i.e., radioactivity 
released from coal burning power production versus nuclear power or a loved 
one dying because of inadequate diagnostic procedures).

But all nuclear professionals have to remember that our perspective on the 
relative risks and benefits of nuclear applications is based on many years of 
positive experiences.   This makes it difficult for us to understand the 
fearful viewpoint of the general public, which makes our responses overly 
tainted with frustration instead of patience and understanding.

We also need to remind ourselves, as well as the public, that a lot of our 
safety is based on a culture of safety.  Many professions (i.e, medicine, law 
enforcement) will have a negative impact on the public if the practitioners 
are incompetent or inattentive in their actions.  Humans make mistakes and 
sometimes the consequences impact others as well as themselves.  That is why 
high professional standards are a part of the system, as well as punishment 
for severe or unacceptable mistakes.

As always, everything we say must be technically accurate - - that is a 
given.  But what we tend to forget is that the presentation of the 
information must be non-technical and free of jargon.  An example is the use 
of multiples of background doses or legally allowed doses in describing a 
dose to the public (versus in Rem or Sieverts).  While I find this personally 
irritating (I want the dose reported in units I can understand) I realize 
that this passes as useful information to the general public.  We can't talk 
down to the general public as if they were children, but we don need to 
realize that very few people in the world have any significant experience 
base with nuclear principles.

Bottomline: Yes, we need a dedicated group of professionals available to 
provide the press an objective perspective on nuclear events; however, that 
perspective should take advantage of the negative motivators that sell 
newspapers and drive people to action - - we need to emphasize what the 
public is personally at risk of losing if a specific nuclear activity is 
suspended. 

The message needs to be honest and accurate, but it also needs the right 
"spin" to sell newspapers.

Tony DeAngelo
Tony@DeAngelo.com  
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html