RE: RADSAFE digest 2760

["Case, Diane (OD)" <DCase@exchange.nih.gov>]

With regard to the following statement:

"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."

Response:

What incidents have occurred in the United States, other than 3 mile Island
(which actually showed that Plant emergency procedures and design prevented a
major disaster).  The United States can't be held accountable for the mistakes
of other countries with various reactor designs and different regulations that
are unlike our own.  Chevy Cavalier cars are noted for terrible safety in
crashes.  Should I therefore, not buy any car?  I do believe, though, that
anyone found to be knowingly compromising safety should be permanently removed
from the field.  Just as I believe a criminal should be removed from society.
If my car crashes, and I am saved by the airbag, should I not drive anymore
because it may not work the next time?
The "incidents" are often unusual problems that are prevented from being
disastrous due to safety and backup procedures. So, are they really incidents?	

And: 

For all of us who complain that the nuclear industry is at fault for not
networking with the media....why hasn't anyone done it?  Why hasn't the ANS or
HPS designate 5 people each as points of contact for information to the media.
Perhaps we need a professional spokesperson. The media will go the lowest common
denominator to get any info they can if no one else is available. That's why
channel 7 news had the caboose operator report on the hazard of radioactive
material in the train which came off the track (or something like that).  Why
doesn't anyone put out "layman" press releases when a plant gets a good rating?
How about asking the Health editor of the Washington Post or the New York Times
do a story on Nuclear Reactors and/or radionuclides in biomedicine/medicine?

And as far as the email which discouraged comparing nuclear risks to other
everyday risks...If you don't like it, you better respond to NRC's drafts:
NUREG 1712 (DRAFT) "Nuclear Byproduct Material Risk review," and NUREG CR-6642,
"Risk Analysis and Evaluation of Regulatory Options for Nuclear Byproduct
Material Systems." Although, they go one step further than comparative risks -
they label activities as safe, moderately safe, unsafe.

People who live around a biomedical institution's  satellite facilities in a
nice town are asking that the Biosafety labs be moved from the area because they
are afraid of release of viruses.  Do they know that they can catch tuberculosis
from someone in the next seat on the bus, as well as from the someone who left
the room 5 minutes ago?

If you want to really decrease mortality/morbidity risks, don't let anyone under
21 drive an automobile, don't allow concealed weapons (oopppsss, I thought I was
going to be robbed, sorry), get rid of your TV, call for a national strike on
all HMO's, think seriously when your kid has guns in his room, don't live near a
chemical plant, and make talking on a cell phone while driving, a serious
offense. By the way--isn't it funny that people are so scared about brain tumors
caused by cell phones, but they don't think twice about the danger of talking
while driving? And as my dear friend Jerry says, you need a license to operate a
car [and use nuclear material], but you don't need one to become a parent.  What
has the greatest potential to cause harm to our society:(1) a serious plant
accident, and (2) criminals who commit crimes because they were born and raised
without proper nurturing and education?

Our entire lives dangle on a thin string of probabilities of risk.  If we do not
need nuclear power, then lets get rid of it completely.  If we do need it, then
we must do all we can to decrease the risk of danger, accept that risk, because
it is a necessity, and get the message out.

Ramblings....D. Case





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