[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Archive Top]
Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Risk = hazard + outrage
Now I am really lost as to what you mean. Are you
saying that a philosophical discussion does not apply to fixing public
fear / rejection of nuclear power? I am not sure what you mean by a
'philosophical discussion' since we are not talking about the meaning of
life or anything metaphysical. I am talking about outrage (and
other human emotions) as it impacts on risk perception. I would not
call that philosophical.
Or maybe you are on about which organizational philosophy we should adopt
as a community of individuals (nation, whatever). Our so called
democratic approach will just have to do until we can find a better
way. Last I heard, that implies governance, indirectly, by the
people and for the people. From what I can gather here in Ontario,
the politicians are attempting to roll out a pro-nuclear path as quickly
as the public will accept it. If the gov pushes too hard or too
fast, there will be push back. Push back at the moment is more
because of cost overruns and lingering concerns about used fuel
storage. Sure, we need proper governance by experts but there must
be public acceptance. Like you said, there are many things that the
public has no outrage over even though they have no control. But,
it lies just below the surface. Water contamination at Walkerton is
one simple example of outrage when a problem arose. Rightly
so.
Now, I agree that nuclear risk perception is out of whack and that we
would be better off re-balancing our attention to things that really
cause death. No argument here. But empowerment IS related to
outrage. You seem to be worried that more empowerment will mean
more regulation and oversight. I don't agree. We already have
that. Empowerment, to me, means making all the stakeholders part of
the dialogue. It mean, as a start, acknowledging that peoples'
fears are very real even if they are not justified. It is not
enough to tell people that small amounts of radiation won't hurt
them.
It is not enough. When you treat a person like a child, don't be
surprised if they act like a child.
Bill
At 04:31 PM 17/03/2007, you wrote:
Fixing public fear/rejection of nuclear
power.
on 3/17/07 1:51 PM, Bill Garland at garlandw@mcmaster.ca wrote:
- Doesn't seem to apply to what
issue?
- At 01:28 AM 17/03/2007, Rad Sci Health wrote:
- This seems to be a philosophical discussion, which doesn’t seem to
apply to the issue.
- We can consider “risk” a function of “outrage” when the “victim” sets
him/herself on fire.
- Otherwise risk is still a (complex, not simple) function of
hazard and probability. To the extent that “outrage” is important
to “acceptance,” it is certainly NOT a function of “empowerment.”
The nuclear industry has largely destroyed itself by insisting on such a
disconnect from reality.
- First, people do not control very many things in their lives that are
a MUCH GREATER actual risks, and they aren’t “outraged” by most of
them. They just get on with their lives and business as
usual. (Long list of examples left to the student.)
- As Jerry said, we have to tell the truth about nuclear hazards.
The nuclear failure is founded on false fear of radiation, which the
nuclear “experts” have supported for about 50 years. It generated
vast amounts of cash, from gullible politicians, and utility ratepayers,
for $100s of Billions (>$ 1 Trillion?) government fraud and corporate
opportunism. (A list of hundreds of examples left to the
“experts.”)
- Second, the premise that we could and should enable more “control” by
“the public” has produced an industry which is an extremely weak
corporate player, which is twisted on a string by its bureaucratic
masters, from the AEC on – AND it is highly rewarded when more “public
input” pushes ever more unjustified layers and costs of “safety” and
“process” in trying to “satisfy the insatiable” of allowing “public
empowerment.”
- The nuclear enterprise invites, and allows, the MOST direct public
access and influence than any industry (with real hazards) which
constantly ratchets up nuclear power costs (think
tritium). Do you ever see any info on what’s going on in that
chemical reactor in a warehouse on the other side of the chain-link fence
in a (usually poor) neighborhood? Do you expect some full-time
onsite regulator to tell you what’s happening day-to-day; and a formal
engineering safety analysis and approval for every change in the chemical
formula being processed?)
- In addition, we’ve known:
- 1. For >100 years that (not so) small
amounts of radiation are beneficial for adverse medical conditions.
We have seen biological responses, with increases from low doses that
produce reduced cancer rates for 90+ years. The FDA acted to
suppress that information in the mid-30s (getting a botanist to write the
first “BEIR Report” as an NAS document) as FDA routinely did with
competing non-drug therapies. This had to be initiated again after
the war, about 1948-49, because Manhattan Project work had again shown
the beneficial effects of low doses (including, e.g., ingestion of
uranium salts). The FDA and NCI had the “lead” in suppressing this
evidence, and substantially controlled AEC-funded research; and the
management of funding enabled the control of appointments to the
NCRP/ICRP/BEIR reports, agency Advisory Boards, radiation protection
authorities, etc. There were many science studies that disproved
the LNT. But this is NOT a matter of SCIENCE! It is a matter of the
formal, credible, process, which was controlled by the
NCRP/ICRP/BRER-BEIR and their well-funded and appointed minions.
- 2. We can’t disburse enough radioactivity in sufficiently
concentrated form to kill many people, even from “worst case” nuclear
power plant events. TMI – melt the core, with containment
leak. Nothing. Even with Chernobyl, with a nuclear excursion
blowing a reactor apart while it is in the air inside a “warehouse”
building that sent a major fraction of the core (with a massive increase
in the inventory of short-lived fission products) killed few if any
people off-site, other than the possibility of a number of long-term
thyroid cancer cases. (But we kill more than that by operating a
typical coal plant normally.)
- We need to get it right. We have to start telling the truth
about the (non-)“hazards” of operating nuclear power plants. As
with other industries, we have to inform the public. This is NOT a
“Public Information” campaign and “letters to the editor.” It is
FIRST, documenting and confirming the evidence by significant science and
engineering efforts to quantify the misinformation (and disinformation)
in the “nuclear safety analysis” computer “models” that are being used
today. Then we have to inform the people in the industry who are
just as uninformed as the general public (many actually believe that the
codes are just “conservative” without quantifying the orders of magnitude
of error incorporated in the nonsense produced by bureaucratic uninformed
computer jocks at Sandia and its sister agents complying with parameters
provided by regulatory process-servers. Then we have to focus on
incorporating this information in standards to implement general
knowledge and results. And, like other industries, we have to
develop our own professional scientific and engineering capabilities,
instead of working with a ring through our nose by unfettered bureaucrats
that we are dependent on to control all the research funds.
- Regards, Jim
- ==========
- on 3/16/07 8:31 AM, Bill Garland at garlandw@mcmaster.ca
wrote:
- Yep. But the question is
'How?". From whence comes the outrage? What I get from
reading some of his stuff, other writers and from my own personal
experiences is that one big factor, but not the only one, is lack of
empowerment - the mushroom syndrome. People need to feel that they
are in control of their destiny to some degree. I, for one, hate to
be told what to do. So I think the tact should be to help people
make decisions by providing suggestions for a thought process and for the
facts. It is a subtle task and should be done at the receivers
pace, else trust is lost. As they say, it is difficult to drink
from a fire hose.
- Bill
- At 10:23 PM 15/03/2007, Jerry Cuttler wrote:
- Bill,
- This is very interesting. I read
and printed many of the papers and articles on Sandman's website.
- His formula is: Risk = Hazard +
Outrage
- Risk has become an emotional issue.
- This is why it is so important for us to
get real about nuclear hazard. When we are unreal, we feed the
outrage.
- Jerry
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: Bill Garland <
<
mailto:garlandw@mcmaster.ca>
mailto:garlandw@mcmaster.ca >
<
mailto:garlandw@mcmaster.ca>
- To: cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA
- Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 10:42 AM
- Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] Risk = fear + outrage
- Here is an interesting web page:
http://www.psandman.com/articles/shield.htm.
- It is about Peter Sandman, a risk guru in the US; discusses public
perception. Worth noting.
- Bill
- Bill Garland, Executive
Director of UNENE and Professor, Dept. of Engineering Physics, Bldg. NRB
117, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, CANADA L8S 4L7, Tel:
(905)525-9140 x24925 Fax: (905)528-4339 Email: garlandw@mcmaster.ca
- Web:
<
www.nuceng.ca
<
http://www.nuceng.ca/> <
<
http://www.nuceng.ca/>
http://www.nuceng.ca/
>
<
http://www.nuceng.ca/> > <
http://canteach.candu.org <
<
http://canteach.candu.org/>
http://canteach.candu.org/ >
<
http://canteach.candu.org/> > <
www.unene.ca
<
http://www.unene.ca/ <http://www.unene.ca
<http://www.unene.ca/> >
<
http://www.unene.ca <http://www.unene.ca/> >
- Bill Garland, Executive
Director of UNENE and Professor, Dept. of Engineering Physics, Bldg. NRB
117, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, CANADA L8S 4L7, Tel:
(905)525-9140 x24925 Fax: (905)528-4339 Email: garlandw@mcmaster.ca
Web:
<
www.nuceng.ca
<
http://www.nuceng.ca/> <
<
http://www.nuceng.ca/>
http://www.nuceng.ca/
>
<
http://www.nuceng.ca/> > <
http://canteach.candu.org <
<
http://canteach.candu.org/>
http://canteach.candu.org/ >
<
http://canteach.candu.org/> > <
www.unene.ca
<
http://www.unene.ca/ <http://www.unene.ca
<http://www.unene.ca/> >
<
http://www.unene.ca <http://www.unene.ca/>
>
Bill Garland, Executive
Director of UNENE and Professor, Dept. of Engineering Physics, Bldg. NRB
117, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, CANADA L8S 4L7, Tel:
(905)525-9140 x24925 Fax: (905)528-4339 Email: garlandw@mcmaster.ca
Web:<
www.nuceng.ca
<
http://www.nuceng.ca/> > <
http://canteach.candu.org
<
http://canteach.candu.org/> >
<www.unene.ca
<
http://www.unene.ca/> >
Bill Garland, Executive Director of UNENE
and Professor, Dept. of Engineering Physics, Bldg. NRB 117, McMaster
University, Hamilton, Ontario, CANADA L8S 4L7, Tel: (905)525-9140
x24925 Fax: (905)528-4339 Email: garlandw@mcmaster.ca
Web:<
www.nuceng.ca>
<
http://canteach.candu.org>
<www.unene.ca>