From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Logic, Trust, and risk. (was Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal)
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:13:13 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Sep24.230617.11827@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:

>All of this is basically irrelevent, however, with respect to the statement
>about the public.  The problem is that the public treats nuclear power
>*differently* than it does other forms of power.  

This is the result of the public feeling lied to.  When someone has
sold you a crock on one occasion, you make 'em work a bit harder before
you part with your money on the next occasion.

You may not like the fact that 'too cheap to meter' and 'no problems
with waste disposal' were touted before you were in the industry.  You
may think they are interesting ancient history.  You may even think
that the incidents at {Rocky Flats, Savanna River, (That place in
Washington... Hanover?), TMI, Chernobyl, Windscale, ...} arn't relevant
since they happened in the (distant?) past or not in 'the nuclear power
industry' or not in our country or not with our reactor designs or ...

But the public sees a single combined nuclear industry painted with one
brush that has been less than diligent in the past about cleaning up
their trash and telling the truth.

What do you do when you kid lies to you and makes messes?  You put him
in 'time out' and then watch 'em real close when he comes out.  You let
him know that it will be A LONG TIME before credibility is restored.
You 'treat him differently'.

>The public's view of
>nuclear power seems to be much more negative than their view of other forms
>of power, even though nuclear power isn't *objectively* much worse (if any)
>than any other form of power generation (except *possibly* in the worst
>case, and even *that* is debatable, inasmuch as the worst case scenario
>for other forms of power generation is rarely discussed, and thus not
>clearly defined).  

It is about on a scale with their (ever increasing) concern over the
handling of chemically toxic materials.  Heck, look at their concern
over chemical explosives.  Just go try to buy a box at the local
hardware store like in the good 'ol days ...

>Thus, the public's largely negative view of nuclear
>power is illogical, because it is subjective and highly biased.

BZZZT.  Wrong. It may well be highly biased (most likely due to 
historical reasons), and it may well be subjective, but that 
DOES NOT mean it is illogical.

You have a highly toxic, highly explosive material that it is not
possible for you to easily track and control (as a random civilian)
being used by highly monied interests to make more money in facilities
that have been shown to be shodily run in the past.  These interests
have often demonstrated more than a bit of disreguard for The Truth
and for the well being of the random Joe Citizen.  You expect the 
public to NOT have a largely negative view?

Note that NONE of the 'complaints' I've listed above are with the
technology of nuclear power plants.  Most are with the organizations
that run THE nuclear industry and with the nature of the material
itself.  (And no, I'm not advocating that reactor fuel is explosive,
only that in THE nuclear industry there are some forms of fuel that
can be used to make bombs and some that can be used to make fuel
rods and that the two functions are not required to be technically
separate ... especially in a breeder/reprocessing cycle...)

>I would argue that most people use the average case as the primary metric
>of comparison of alternatives for most of the decisions they make.  

Until it is shown that the worst case is the right one to use ...
I won't knowingly buy a house in a flood plain.
I won't knowingly live near a chemical storage or disposal site.
I won't knowingly live right below a hydro dam.

The 'worst case' is just not acceptable, even though the average
case is ...

I buy insurance for things that have acceptable average DOLLAR losses,
but where the 'burstiness' of the cost is un-acceptable.

>That
>they seem not to do this with respect to nuclear power indicates to me an
>illogical bias.

That they do this with respect to nuclear power indicates to me that
they consider it on a par with chemical hazards ...  and act accordingly
in a perfectly logical way.  As to why so many folks live below dams and 
in flood plains, I can only guess that some folks would be willing to live 
next to nuclear plants too ...

>Since you have admitted that the risk assessment of a power-generating
>method (be it nuclear, coal, or whatever) is a subjective thing (inasmuch
>as it's not an *objective* thing), and since your objections to nuclear
>power seem to be based *solely* on your view of the risks of using nuclear
>power (for some reason, the worst-case scenario with respect to nuclear
>power causes you great concern, yet you clearly do not treat the worst-case
>scenario with respect to your car with the same concern, else you would
>reach the same conclusion about driving that you reach about nuclear
>power), 

This is an interesting point.   One is far more likely to die from a 
car accident than from any 'credible' nuclear accident.  Even the
scale of nuclear accidents isn't much different from major airliner
crashes.  (What's the record, 1000 dead?) 

Consider another:  The risk of dying from cancer is (roughly) 
distributed as 35% from lung cancer mostly attributable to smoking, 
35% from colon cancer mostly attributable to HIGH FAT DIETS, and 
the remainder from other causes.  Thats right, the risk of the 
typical American High Fat diet is about the same as smoking.  

Vegetarians are MUCH less prone to death from colon cancer.
(like, single digits ... I've forgotten exactly what, but somewere
around 2% to 5% vs 35% ...)

So why does the average person get worried about cancer from smoking,
but discuss it over a Burger, Fries, Shake, ... 

For me, finding this information has led to a great increase in my 
plant intake and a great decrease in my fat intake ... but not as 
much as I'd expected and even less for other folks I've told.  There 
is SOMETHING to be said for familiarity leading to denial and 
unfamiliarity leading to suspicion ... 

>it follows that your rejection of nuclear power is entirely
>subjective in nature, i.e. a mere opinion with no objective grounding.
>
>That being the case, why should we take your opinion seriously?

Because 'subjective' is NOT a dirty word, and opinions indicate
underlying causes that will determine how the nuclear industry 
fares in the future.  If you DON'T take the average Joe Citizens
opinion seriously, you are likely to be faced with a continued
stagnant industry since you won't know what concerns you need
to address in future designs and/or presentations...

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.