X-Envelope-to: BIOSPH-L@UBVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: BIOSPH
X-VMS-Cc: WHITLOCK
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:19:07 -0400
Reply-To:     Jeremy Whitlock <WHITLOCK@MCMASTER.BITNET>
From:         Jeremy Whitlock <WHITLOCK@MCMASTER.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Lovins et al

Bill Condon writes:

 > I wonder if Amory Lovins ever measured the radon level in his home?
 > And since this is Mother Nature's gift, there is no one to take a shot
 > at.  The resultant radiation exposure from elevated indoor radon levels
 >  can be many times that from living adjacent to a nuclear plant.

and DannyK responds:

  > High levels of indoor radon can be relatively easily mitigated by the
  > design of the house or ventilation of the basement or living area.

Ventilation becomes not so easy in cold climates, in which case the most
efficient method is to use air-to-air heat exchangers.  These are expensive
and drive up the cost of super-insulating your house considerably.  The
Lovins are worried about indoor Radon levels, and have air-to-air heat
exchangers, which is part of my argument that the lifestyle they espouse is
simply not practical for the common folk.

  > while both forms of radiation may be equally hazardous, the perceived
  > hazzard is what is important for public acceptance. The ability to control
  > exposure to hazzards is one of the greatest variables in acceptance. Thus
  > exposure to radon which can be controled by venting the cellar is more
  > acceptable than exposure to radfiation from a public utility. Another big
  > factor is catastrophic potential of which the power plant possesses far
  > more than radon.

This is true, and if one examines a longer list of factors that affect risk
perception it quickly becomes clear that nuclear power comes out bad on
most of them, which of course is at the heart of its public relations
problem.  Here is a list of what increases public concern about risk:

                        RISK PERCEPTION FACTORS

1) High Catastrophic Potential -- regardless of accident probability, high
consequences will cause high perceived risk.

2) Low Familiarity -- technology is unfamiliar.

3) Low Understanding -- technology is complex and difficult to understand
by public.

4) High Uncertainty -- risks are scientifically unknown or uncertain.

5) Low Controllability -- technology is not controlled at a personal level.

6) Low Voluntariness -- exposure to technology is involuntary.

7) High Effect on Children -- children especially susceptible to effects.

8) Delayed Effects -- effects don't manifest immediately.

9) High Effect on Future Generations -- effects passed on.

10) High Victim Identifiability -- victims are individuals, not
statistical.

11) High Dread -- effects are dreaded.

12) Low Trust in Institutions -- technology comes from untrusted
institution.

13) High Media Attention -- technology given high profile.

14) History of Accidents -- major accidents known to public.

15) Low Equity -- inequitable distribution of Risks and Benefits.

16) Low Benefit Perception -- benefits not clear.

17) Low Reversibility -- effects irreversible, once discovered.

18) Human Origin -- effect caused by human actions or failures (not act of
nature or God)

Out of this list, only #4 (high uncertainty of risks), and #10 (high victim
identifiability) are in nuclear's favour, since the industry's risks are
perhaps the most understood of any industry in the world, and the victims
of chronic radiation exposure are usually not detectable on an individual
basis.  (Of course, even these two are included on the negative side by some
people.)

Quite a challenge for the PR people!

Jeremy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Whitlock                        e-mail:  WHITLOCK@MCMASTER.CA
Dept. of Engineering Physics
McMaster University                    phone: (416) 525-9140 ext.7140
Hamilton, Ont.
CANADA   L8S 4L8
                   "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU