One of the themes present in this thread was whether we have the right to be
worried about what we want to be worried about. I would agree that we do.
You can worry about anything you want to worry about.
But we have to be careful when our concerns begin to affect public policy.
Ultimately the name of the game is "risk assessment," and at some point we
have to agree on what risks we as society are willing to take.
Although I am getting better at accepting it, when my son first got his
drivers license and wanted to drive away from our local community, I
worried. I worried a lot when he drove from Ohio to Colorado to do some
camping (at 18 years old). I recently worried when he drove to Florida for
spring break (at 19 years old). I guess as a parent it is my right, if not
my duty to worry about this type of thing. Some amount of worry is good.
The worry helped me make sure his oil was changed, his tires were in good
shape, he had an AAA card, he had a credit card, he had a cell phone, etc.
Worrying about nuclear power (as well as coal and other power plants) helps
us maintain safety standards.
However, we cannot let irrational worry dictate public policy. I know a
person who will not wear a seat belt (afraid of being trapped in the car)
yet strongly opposes nuclear power. This shows an irrational attitude
toward risk assessment. If this person were to assess risk in a rational
manner, the risk of death when driving around without a seat belt greatly
exceeds the risk of living next door to a nuclear power plant, or living
along the transport route of nuclear waste. However, no amount of arguing
with this person seems to have any effect. People like this cannot set
public policy because we, as a global community, face decisions that require
a much more rational approach to risk assessment.
Unfortunately there are a lot of people who do not behave rationally with
respect to risks of all kinds, and nuclear risks seem to really push the
"irrational button." It especially pains me to see scientists behaving this
way. I know scientists in my community, and suspect there may be some on
this list, who do not bat an eye at the following things:
-- Farmers with pick-up trucks hauling tanks of anhydrous ammonia down my
street, driving 40 mph in a 25 mph zone with insufficient braking power for
the size of tank they are pulling, and having this liquid sloshing around in
the tank as it weaves down the road.
-- Trains through town carrying tank cars full of chlorine gas, hydrogen
cyanide, benzene, etc.
-- Smoking cigarettes.
-- Speeding.
-- Talking on the cell phone while driving.
The list goes on and on... people accept all types of terrible risks, simply
because they "always have" and they refuse to tolerate much lower risks if
it involves something they are unfamiliar with. Or they accept terrible
risks if they think they are in control, but they will not accept much lower
risks if someone else is in control. Why is this true? Why do we accept a
1-in-1000 familiar risk or one we control, but we do not accept a
1-in-1,000,000 risk if it is unfamiliar or we have a phobia about it, or
someone else is in control. It just doesn't make any sense.
Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D. Phone/voice-mail: 419-358-3270
Professor of Chemistry & Physics FAX: 419-358-3323
Chairman, Science Department E-Mail edmiston@bluffton.edu
Bluffton College
280 West College Avenue
Bluffton, OH 45817