[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Mindset
In the short run I would hope that we can try to create a group of
educated consumers of nuclear medicine and power...to the point where
they/we have some reasonable sense of what is probably not dangerous
releases, what is possibly dangerous releases, and what is a dangerous
dose of radioactivity so that we can make reasonable choices about risk
benefit ratios.
I suspect that 3 workers are critically injured in the coal mining and
transportation process every few days. But these accidents are well
documented and seemingly straight forward.
On the other hand we still do not know how much fission products were
released/measured at the JCO accident and itis not clear whether KI
should have been distributed and why earlier notification did not
happen.
It is simple: the more honesty, the more trust.
And, I agree that there are some anti/pro nuke folks who will use any
arguments regardless of scientific merit to push their agenda. However,
I also believe there are rational caring smart people on both sides of
the debate and they need to have a dialogue...and I suspect not a few
are lurking in this listserve and elsewhere waiting to unite in
dialogue, in safety programs, and in educational initiatives.
Thanks to Ron for his kind/thoughful remarks.
"Ron L. Kathren" wrote:
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0080_01BF150C.64313300
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> An open letter to Dan Burnstein
>
> Dear Mr. Burnstein:
>
> You made a very eloquent statement in your posting to RadSafe about what =
> you called the ". . . polarized friend or foe mentality" of the =
> nuclear industry. And indeed there is much truth in what you say. A =
> long time ago I came to a similar conclusion about the polarization of =
> the pro and anti nuclear forces. I would suggest that in addition to =
> the 5 items you cited, we need three more: (6) open an honest dialog =
> with those on the other side (7) improve the quality of science =
> education at all levels in our schools so that our young people will be =
> better equipped to interpret the claims made (8) respond vigorously and =
> rapidly to refute ad hominem attacks as well as to outrageous and =
> unscientific claims, irrespective of which side is making them.
>
> I would remind you, Mr. Burnstein, that polarization involves two poles, =
> and the industry is not solely to blame for hyperbole and inaccuracy and =
> wishful thinking; a good example on the opposite side comes from those =
> who discredited out of hand the recent Hanford thyroid disease study =
> (and in some cases trashed the independent scientists who did the work) =
> because it did not support their preestablished beliefs that the Hanford =
> radioidine releases were the cause of vastly increased numbers of =
> thyroid cancers as well as a lot of other ailments. Another example is =
> the many American doomed to needlessly suffer and die early because this =
> country, for whatever reasons but I would guess largely because of =
> anti-nuclear pressure, imports more than 99% of the medically used =
> radionuclides. There is simply no large reactor that is permitted to =
> produce medically useful radionuclides. And yet another -- we have =
> spent many millions of $ in the quest for the absolutely perfect waste =
> disposal site, when the real question should be: Is the site adequate =
> and will the disposal achieve a higher level of safety and economy than =
> we now have? And so high level radioactive waste disposal, which I =
> daresay you will agree is a technological reality, languishes to the =
> detriment of the American people, not only monitarily but because the =
> wastes exist today in a less safe form than they would if we used the =
> technology at our disposal to contain and isolate them.=20
>
> (Regarding radioactive waste, I reiterate what I have said many times =
> before: no one wants a solution to the problem of high level nuclear =
> waste disposal. The activists don't want a solution, for it takes away =
> their cause. The industry and regulators don't want a solution, for it =
> takes away their jobs. The media don't want a solution, for they would =
> lose a lot of good copy and sell fewer newspapers and lose audience =
> share. The politicians don't want a solution, for it likely would cost =
> them votes. The only ones who want a solution are the American public, =
> and nobody seems to give a hoot about them!!!.)
>
> And so, to self professed sometime critic Mr. Burnstein, I, a self =
> professed health physicist who believes that the mission of our =
> profession is to protect people and the environment from the harmful =
> effects of radiation while at the same time promoting its use for the =
> benefit of people, would be delighted to work with you (or anyone else =
> for that matter) to do what it takes to open a genuine and honest =
> dialogue between the two poles, and to get us back on track steering a =
> pragmatic middle course, to the overall betterment and safety of the =
> American public and, of course, those who work in the nuclear industry. =
> United in common cause and genuinely working together with self interest =
> put aside, critics and proponents can accomplish much. =20
>
> Ron Kathren=20
>
> =20
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0080_01BF150C.64313300
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
> <HTML>
> <HEAD>
>
> <META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
> http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
> <META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>An open letter to Dan =
> Burnstein</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Dear Mr. Burnstein:</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>You made a very eloquent statement =
> in your=20
> posting to RadSafe about what you called the ". . =
> .=20
> polarized friend or foe mentality" of the nuclear industry. =
> And=20
> indeed there is much truth in what you say. A long time ago I came =
> to a=20
> similar conclusion about the polarization of the pro and anti nuclear=20
> forces. I would suggest that in addition to the 5 items you cited, =
> we need=20
> three more: (6) open an honest dialog with those on the other side =
> (7)=20
> improve the quality of science education at all levels in our schools so =
> that=20
> our young people will be better equipped to interpret the claims =
> made (8)=20
> respond vigorously and rapidly to refute ad hominem attacks as well as =
> to=20
> outrageous and unscientific claims, irrespective of which side is making =
>
> them.</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I would remind you, Mr. Burnstein, =
> that=20
> polarization involves two poles, and the industry is not solely to blame =
> for=20
> hyperbole and inaccuracy and wishful thinking; a good example on the =
> opposite=20
> side comes from those who discredited out of hand the recent Hanford =
> thyroid=20
> disease study (and in some cases trashed the independent scientists who =
> did the=20
> work) because it did not support their preestablished beliefs that the =
> Hanford=20
> radioidine releases were the cause of vastly increased numbers of =
> thyroid=20
> cancers as well as a lot of other ailments. Another example is the =
> many=20
> American doomed to needlessly suffer and die early because this country, =
> for=20
> whatever reasons but I would guess largely because of anti-nuclear =
> pressure,=20
> imports more than 99% of the medically used radionuclides. There =
> is simply=20
> no large reactor that is permitted to produce medically useful=20
> radionuclides. And yet another -- we have spent many millions of $ =
> in the=20
> quest for the absolutely perfect waste disposal site, when the real =
> question=20
> should be: Is the site adequate and will the disposal achieve a higher =
> level of=20
> safety and economy than we now have? And so high level radioactive =
> waste=20
> disposal, which I daresay you will agree is a technological reality, =
> languishes=20
> to the detriment of the American people, not only monitarily but because =
> the=20
> wastes exist today in a less safe form than they would if we used the =
> technology=20
> at our disposal to contain and isolate them. </FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>(Regarding radioactive waste, I =
> reiterate what I=20
> have said many times before: no one wants a solution to the problem of =
> high=20
> level nuclear waste disposal. The activists don't want a solution, =
> for it=20
> takes away their cause. The industry and regulators don't want a =
> solution,=20
> for it takes away their jobs. The media don't want a solution, for =
> they=20
> would lose a lot of good copy and sell fewer newspapers and lose =
> audience=20
> share. The politicians don't want a solution, for it likely would =
> cost=20
> them votes. The only ones who want a solution are the American =
> public, and=20
> nobody seems to give a hoot about them!!!.)</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>And so, to self professed sometime critic Mr. =
> Burnstein, I, a=20
> self professed health physicist who believes that the mission of our =
> profession=20
> is to protect people and the environment from the harmful effects of =
> radiation=20
> while at the same time promoting its use for the benefit of people, =
> would be=20
> delighted to work with you (or anyone else for that matter) to do what =
> it takes=20
> to open a genuine and honest dialogue between the two poles, and to get =
> us back=20
> on track steering a pragmatic middle course, to the overall betterment =
> and=20
> safety of the American public and, of course, those who work in the =
> nuclear=20
> industry. United in common cause and genuinely working together =
> with self=20
> interest put aside, critics and proponents can accomplish much. =20
> </FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Ron Kathren </FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> </FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0080_01BF150C.64313300--
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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
- References:
- Mindset
- From: "Ron L. Kathren" <rkathren@tricity.wsu.edu>