[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RADSAFE digest 2753
I agree that the nuclear industry is held to a higher standard than virtually
any other endeavor in the history of civilization. You could say that we
brought this on ourselves, with LNT. (This was convenient when there was
unlimited funding and we wanted to increase health physics employment. It's too
late to take it back, now that circumstances have changed.) Also, the first
widely known use of nuclear technology was as a weapon. (What if the electric
chair had been used before the electric light bulb?)
Regardless of the reasons, this is a fact of life. We have to learn to live
with this, or we'll go out of business. Complaining and denial only make things
worse.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
"Lavera, Ron" wrote:
> I agree that the public should have a high level of faith
> that the nuclear industry is safe and has a high level of integrity and
> professionalism. I do believe that the nuclear industry is held to a much
> higher standard of expectations than any other commercial industry. For
> instance, if the non-nuclear utility industry were held to the same criteria
> as the commercial nuclear industry, then there would be no need for the EPA
> ( at the demand of eastern states ) to sue mid-western utilities for
> emission violations. Nor would the FAA be able to certify a commercial
> airliner, they would all be too heavy to fly.
>
> What is not evenly portrayed is the fact that Nuclear Power
> provides a direct and positive the citizens of America and the world. Those
> benefits include the use of numerous radioactive isotopes that are used for
> a wide variety of health concerns, the use of radiation to dramatically
> reduce incidences of actual ( as opposed to postulated ) death due to food
> poisoning, improved commercial product performance including better
> performance of insulators used for cables used through out the country. In
> addition, nuclear power can be a powerful method reducing actual ( as
> opposed to possible ) deaths by reducing acid rain, ozone, nitrous oxides
> and CO2 emissions.
>
> Instead of focusing on the number of fatalities that are
> actually averted by the intelligent, responsible and safe use of a valuable
> resource, many well established or recognized groups prefer to focus on the
> small ( and statistically difficult to prove ) possible fatalities that
> COULD result from the use of this resource.
>
> There is a risk associated with the use of EVERY industry.
> The playing field should be level.
>
> ...mine and mine alone...
>
> Ron LaVera
> Lavera.r@nypa.gov
>
> The bottom line for the public is whether the nuclear
> industry can be trusted to safely
> operate the technology. Not only have there been enough
> incidents to convince them
> otherwise, but also the industry makes it worse by going
> into denial. The argument that
> no one was hurt, so why the fuss is equivalent to running a
> stop sign and saying that
> since there was no accident, you shouldn't get a citation.
> The concern is not this
> time, but what will happen the next time you run a stop
> sign.
>
> The one success story in this business, the Nuclear Navy,
> got that way by convincing the
> public that they take every photon and every mrem seriously,
> and that they have zero
> tolerance for error.
> ************************************************************************
> 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