rational tantrums

[Dan Burnstein <npro1@ziplink.net>]

I read the correspondence below with a sigh.  Underlying is the unspoken
question, how could rational scientists be
anti-nuclear?  Maybe the answer lies not in nuclear power itself, but
its history of stonewalling PR and assertions that:
- accidents cannot happen and if they do happen they are due to human
error and are outlying data points,
- nuclear power is inherantly safe and cost effective.

For the longest time the nuclear industry has had a polarized friend or
foe mentality.  It has assumed that foes are either fools
or those who make or raise money based on the partisanship of the
fools.   Hence the suggestion below that UCS was only
anti-nuke to make money.  And, likewise, the statements I heard from
health physicists at the Boston annual mtg. of the Health
Physics Society some years ago that Karl Z. Morgan was only concerned
about health effects of radiation because he was a.
mentally unstable and b. he did it to gain hefty expert witness fees.

In this same vein, a spokesperson from the nuclear industry in
Massachusetts claims that government laboratory personnel
know that current clean up standards are irrational, that low levels of
radiation are good for you (hormeisis) in the 0-25 rads
level, and that all the government labs know this is true and are merely
supporting BEIR V to stay on the gravy train of
federally supported clean up programs.

Hence we have conspiracies on top of conspiracies.

How do we go beyond this mindset?

IMHO, we need to:
1. Educate the public about the facts and gray areas regarding nuclear
safety.
2. Provide honest and timely information that is dependible on radiation
safety and nuclear operations.
3. Support large scale studies that can help determine when and where
radiation exposure is a real health problem.
4. Stop character attacks on those who hold different opinions.
5. Come up with balanced educational materials that can create a class
of educated consumers and government officials that
can withstand irrational attacks because they are honest about the
strengths and problems inherant in nuclear power.

Best regards from a sometimes critic,

Dan Burnstein
(member of  Mass. Advisory Council on Radiation Protection; the above
comments represents only my personal opinion)




  Subject:
            RE: the RADSAFE tantrum re Lochbaum/NPR/UCS
       Date:
            Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:36:21 -0500 (CDT)
      From:
            Bernard L Cohen
   Reply-To:
            radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
        To:
            Multiple recipients of list




  On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Weiner, Ruth wrote:

    So my question is: with all the
  > highly credentialled scientists on the governing board, why does UCS
follow
  > (albeit not stridently) an anti-nuke party line?

      In the early days, UCS was led by Henry Kendall as an anti-nuclear

  power organization. It built up sources of revenue on that basis.
Then,
  Kendall decided to concentrate on problems of nuclear weapons, like
  opposing the star-wars program. A very prominent scientist I know who
is
  very pro-nuclear power was interested in the same weapons problems. He

  reached an agreement with Kendall that he would join the Board of UCS
if
  Kendall would drop his personal opposition to nuclear power. Kendall
lived
  up to his word and to a very large extent, UCS has put only a very
small
  part of its effort into nuclear power issues, concentrating on nuclear

  weapons issues. Still, UCS has always had one (or perhaps more)
employees
  who are active in opposing nuclear power and he is the one the Media
  consult.
      I suspect that the other prominent scientists on the UCS Board
  were recruited in the same way as my friend mentioned above.



  >
  >
  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: Dukelow, James S Jr [mailto:jim.dukelow@pnl.gov]
  > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 8:14 PM
  > To: Multiple recipients of list
  > Subject: the RADSAFE tantrum re Lochbaum/NPR/UCS
  >
  >
  >
  > I was catching up on some back digests of RADSAFE and had the
experience of
  > reading all at once the four day tantrum over NPR's decision to
interview
  > David
  > Lochbaum, a  Nuclear Safety Engineer with the Union of Concerned
Scientists.
  > That leaves me in the position of defending UCS, an organization
with whom I
  > hardly ever agree on nuclear issues, and NPR, which I listen to
almost every
  > day, and with whose coverage on various issues I frequently
disagree.
  >
  > I took me 10 minutes on the Internet to verify that UCS, although
clearly a
  > political and an advocacy organization (indeed, that is their
purpose for
  > being), has rather substantial scientific credentials.  One of its
  > co-founders
  > and for 25 years its chairman, the late Henry Kendall was a
professor of
  > physics
  > at Harvard or MIT and a Nobel Laureate in physics.  It current Board
of
  > Directors includes Peter Bradford, a former NRC Commissioner; Sallie

  > Chisholm,
  > McAfee Professor of Engineering at MIT; Thomas Eisner, Shurman
Professor of
  > Biology at Cornell; James Fay (emeritus board member), professor
emeritus of
  > mechanical engineering at MIT; Richard Garwin, IBM Fellow Emeritus
(and a
  > laundry list of other positions at the top of the national science
advisory
  > structure for 30 or 40 years); Kurt Gottried (chair of the board),
emeritus
  > professor of physics at Cornell; Mario Molina, Institute Professor
at MIT
  > and
  > Nobel Laureate in chemistry; Adele Simmons, president of the
McArthur
  > Foundation
  > and former professor and dean at Princeton and president of
Hampshire
  > College;
  > Victor Weisskopf (emeritus board member), emeritus professor of
physics at
  > MIT
  > and a former group leader at Los Alamos during the Manhattan
Project.
  >
  > The staff, as opposed to the board, has the variety of backgrounds
that are
  > needed to run an organization like UCS.  Several of them have
significant
  > academic credentials and/or work experience.  I would include
Lochbaum in
  > that
  > group, on the basis of the brief bio on the UCS web site and the
detailed
  > resume
  > eventually posted on RADSAFE.  The fact that he was a reactor
operator and a
  > shift technical advisor and had a 17 year career in the nuclear
industry,
  > including several utilities, a reactor vendor, and a couple of
different
  > consultant organizations, suggests that he is competent to speak on
nuclear
  > safety issues (the obvious question being, If not, what was he doing
working
  > in
  > that area in the industry for 17 years?).
  >
  > All of this doesn't mean that UCS and its staff are right on the
issues we
  > are
  > interested in, but I think it does mean that we should respond to
their
  > arguments with our arguments, not with childish and, in some cases,
  > offensive
  > name-calling.
  >
  > Although I could not chase down the interview with Lochbaum on NPR's
1
  > October
  > coverage, I was able to listen to several of their reports on the
accident
  > that
  > day.  One of the earliest reports involved a somewhat breathless
interview
  > on
  > Morning Edition with a Tokyo-based journalist, Juliette Hindell.
Her
  > responses
  > to some questions exposed the limits of her knowledge of what she
was
  > talking
  > about.  Also, the interviewer  (Cokie or Linda, I believe) kept
prodding her
  > to
  > say something more sensationalistic.
  >
  > On the other hand, the afternoon reports on All Thing Considered
were pretty
  > good.  The first one was a fairly straightforward report by NPR
staff.  The
  > second interviewed Richard Wilson, Harvard physics professor, and
John
  > Bisella
  > (sp.?), Johns Hopkins Director of Medical Physics.  The interview
and the
  > commentary from both interviewees was careful, balanced, and
informative.
  > All
  > in all, it was probably the best media coverage of the accident I
  > saw/read/heard
  > during the early days of the accident.  Not like BBC, which ran a
photo of a
  > hole in the roof of another facility caused by another accident,
while
  > writing/saying repeatedly that it was caused by the "explosion" that

  > occurred
  > early in the Tokaimura accident.
  >
  > I suggest more reflection and some research before sending messages
to
  > RADSAFE
  > and further agree with McCarthy and Lipton that ad hominem attacks
are
  > completely out of line.
  >
  > Best regards.
  >
  > Jim Dukelow
  > Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
  > Richland, WA
  > jim.dukelow@pnl.gov
  >
  > These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved
by my
  > management or by the U.S. Department of Energy.
  >
************************************************************************

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

  > The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and
subscription
  > information can be accessed at
http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
  >
  Bernard L. Cohen
  Physics Dept.
  University of Pittsburgh
  Pittsburgh, PA 15260
  Tel: (412)624-9245
  Fax: (412)624-9163
  e-mail: blc+@pitt.edu



************************************************************************

  The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription

  information can be accessed at
http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

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