I would suggest that those of us that care about these issues use appropriate language ourselves. We should not refer to the accidents as "disasters". I am not trying to whitewash the the risks but the three that are always talked about were not disasters in comparison to the deaths that happened with the tsunami is Japan. The tsunami kill almost 20k. The evacuation of people due to radiation phobia killed almost 2k. The nuclear accident killed zero and will probably kill no one in the long run from radiation exposure. We need to tell the truth and stop allowing the anti-nuclear groups to control the dialog and tell lies about what happens when an accident occurs. In no case should we downplay the risks but present them in terms of the risk compared to other risks. We should help other understand what the risks are from using other energy technologies and compare them fairly. Recent studies of experts in various fields show that sometimes the experts don't have the full set of facts and are thus timid to speak out. I was in this group until recently until I took the time to study it out. I now have a very large bibliography of good data to support my statements and I can speak with boldness on these issues. I am glad to share what I have learned. I give public talks on energy technologies and their impacts on society and the environment. So far the talks have been are well received and many people tell me that they appreciate being told the truth so that they can be informed citizens.

The problem even more serious in the developing countries , the important question should be handled that natural radioactive exists in our bodies and the environment, renewable energy would not be able to replace oil energy in the near future ,hopping that nanotechnology will help for better nuclear waste treatment .

First of all thanks for raising such an interesting question. I think tackling this issue should start with imagining our lives without radiation. For example, if we neglect the research and advancement of radiation uses, then how we can treat our people diagnosed with cancer? I guess starting with emphasizing the rule of radiation in enhancing our lives can provide the public with a good impression. This is only one way to show the value of radiation.

It is interesting discussion. I think the developing countries should have a qualified and trained staff through a continuous capacity building program. To be able to deal with emergency and accidents.

educate them because they do not know the truth

The only way is education. I have two examples:

1. In Poland, in the area where possibly the nuclear power plant will be built, the investor established information points for inhabitants, where they could get information about nuclear power, radiation and ask questions. After a few years the advocacy for nuclear power in this area is about 80-90%, compared to about 50% in the scale of the whole country.

2. A few years ago I’ve made a very small research about advocacy for nuclear power in the society within a small project on my university. I asked people to fill a survey, where there were questions about their attitude to nuclear power and radiation and also questions which checked the knowledge in the field of radiation and nuclear. Maybe the results are not very reliable for the amount of people asked was below 100 but I’ve seen strong correlation between the level of knowledge (number of correct answers) and the advocacy for nuclear power.

There should be a condensed TV programs to explain the nuclei structures and the type of the radiations and how we deal with them, in addition to a several advertisements on these programs. The TV programs have to use a demonstration tools to simplify the nuclear concepts of radiations and their affects.

Думаю,що не треба наганяти страху, але пересторога має бути. Я не бачу страху у тих, хто організує й приймає участьв екскурсіях в Чорнобильську зону. Бачу в цьому лише недолугість та неосвченість чиновників, які це дозволяють. А радіофобії я у населення України не бачила.

O. Raksha-Slusareva Извините что я ответу по-русски.

Я была в Чернобыле, и многие люди перед поездкой спрашивали мне, почему я это делаю, или я не боюсь, что не смогу иметь детей позже (!). Я знаю, что многие люди, прежде поездкой в Зону боятся. Например, некоторые люди не хотят обедать в чернобыльской столовой.

Education! since Primary School! ...

Я теж була в Прип'яті на ануковій конференції, як радіобіолог. НЕ раджу туди їздити на прогулянки. Захист ту від радіації (гама-опромінення) немає.

First of all thanks to raising these problem . These issue more serious problem in the developing country, because of the people can not be awareness of radioactivity exist in our body and the human environment .

I would suggest that those of us that care about these issues use appropriate language ourselves. We should not refer to the accidents as "disasters". I am not trying to whitewash the the risks but the three that are always talked about were not disasters in comparison to the deaths that happened with the tsunami is Japan. The tsunami kill almost 20k. The evacuation of people due to radiation phobia killed almost 2k. The nuclear accident killed zero and will probably kill no one in the long run from radiation exposure. We need to tell the truth and stop allowing the anti-nuclear groups to control the dialog and tell lies about what happens when an accident occurs. In no case should we downplay the risks but present them in terms of the risk compared to other risks. We should help other understand what the risks are from using other energy technologies and compare them fairly. Recent studies of experts in various fields show that sometimes the experts don't have the full set of facts and are thus timid to speak out. I was in this group until recently until I took the time to study it out. I now have a very large bibliography of good data to support my statements and I can speak with boldness on these issues. I am glad to share what I have learned. I give public talks on energy technologies and their impacts on society and the environment. So far the talks have been are well received and many people tell me that they appreciate being told the truth so that they can be informed citizens.

I agree, that education is the primary means. However, my experience is, that if you educate people (starting at primary school until university), that a part of the people are still sceptical and don't even believe the data. Hence, there is a LOT of work to do. For this, we need experts, and at the moment, we are progressively loosing this expertise. Therefore, it is also a political problem.

Good question! I've often attempted to do this in a bi-weekly column for a Los Alamos paper and OP-EDs in other papers and media. Various people and groups have so preached, in essence, against the words NUCLEAR and RADIATION that the majority of our country and others, even those well educated, react to them with negativism and fear.

I've often started with a discussion of NATURAL RADIATION and the fact that some of it comes from our own bodies. Unfortunately, as my dad often told me, you can argue long and hard about your understanding and facts, but you will never change the mind of a person who has a firm and different belief.

Dr. T. Douglas Reilly, Los Alamos, New Mexico

Both the Russian government and the Japanese government botched the public confidence by hiding the severity of the accident in the first instance. The Russians hide this completely in the first few days. It were the Swedish that noted it the first at a nuclear power station. The Japanes put their extensive system of radiation monitoring out of operation just after the incident leaving the public in the dark. The government also intervened with the crew in Fukushima increasing the consequences of the accident. Official death rates of nuclear accidents are not to be trusted. e.g. the book by the nobel price winner Svelana Alaexijevishj gives a complete different picture than that of the ministry of health of Belarus. for Japan it is too early to determine the number of death.

Willem Jan

Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future by Kate Brown

Historian Kate Brown attempts to reconcile post-disaster propaganda with the actual devastation caused by the Chernobyl disaster, and she catalogs the Soviet, post-Soviet Ukraine, and international efforts to minimize the world’s understanding of the true toll of the disaster and its aftermath. She draws parallels with what happened in Japan in 2011, noting that some of the misinformation coming out of Chernobyl directly impacted decisions made about how to handle Fukushima.

I've read Dr. Brown's book and have a continuing email discussion with her; I've also watched the HBO mini-series, CHERNOBYL. Both contain information I consider incorrect regarding the effects of Dhernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. I submitted the comment below to the Christian Science Monitor regarding its review of Kate's book.

Thu, Jul 18, 2019 8:07 pm

Subject: comment re: A deep look into the Chernobyl disaster

Dear Sir/Madam:

I wish to respond to the book review (A deep look into the Chernobyl disaster); I recently read a similar review in the NYT. Unfortunately, much that has been written about Chernobyl, even in responsible media, is quite inaccurate.

The reactors at Chernobyl are known as RBMK (“High Power Channel-type Reactor); they, as the review says, are similar to the USA’s plutonium-production reactors at Hanford and Savannah River. The US reactors, with the exception of Hanford’s N-reactor, only produce plutonium for weapons, not electricity. The USSR used RBMKs for civilian electricity production . Almost all RBMKs were built without a containment vessel in case of an emergency, like a fire and meltdown. Finland, because of its relation with the USSR, purchased RMBKs, but built containment vessels. The Russians were aware of the negative safety aspects of the reactors, but ignored them for cost reasons. After Chernobyl, all remaining RBMKs were modified to render them much safer. The modern pressurized-water-reactors (PWR) at Fukushima Daiich are of a very different design than those at Chernobyl.

The principal problem at Chernobyl was that in certain conditions the reactivity of the reactor increases if the coolant temperature rises; this is a dangerous characteristic. The fire and fuel meltdown of Reactor 4 occurred while operators performed a test, but responded incorrectly to the resultant rise in temperature. There are much safer reactor designs; newer ones are immune by design from accidents such as occurred at Chernobyl.

Much of what was reported in the global media was scary, but exaggerated, if not false.

I’m a physicist, retired from Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) with multi-year assignments to EURATOM, DOE, and the IAEA. My field is nuclear safeguards and nonproliferation. I’ve studied much about the Chernobyl incident. LANL gave a colloquium showing satellite photos of the reactor fire. I’ve been 4 times to Belarus and driven to the exclusion zone. I’ve been to Ukraine 7 times; there’s a museum between Kiev and Chernobyl dedicated to the incident. I’ve spent most of my career working for and with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that I believe has done the most thorough and accurate analysis of the incident and its effects.

The panic that ensued the announcement of Chernobyl was unwarranted, but very understandable. Unfortunately, words like nuclear, accident, radiation, etc. are not understood by the general public and incite panic. I still hear occasionally that the Chernobyl incident will eventually result in over 20 million deaths from cancer. That is totally incorrect. The IAEA assembled a committee of over 100 of the world’s best people; i.e. physicists, chemists, medical professionals, and others; to study all the information available regarding the accident; i.e. radiation emitted, winds and weather, distribution of fallout and radiation, and resulting health effects. The final report, see for example IAEA STI/PUB/1312, concluded that beyond the immediate 25-30 deaths* of plant personnel who volunteered to extinguish to fire, the final fatality toll will be slightly over 4,000. Certainly, this is a terrible lose, but it is not the catastrophe that we read. For an example; over 1000 children in Ukraine and Belarus developed thyroid cancer from inhaling radioactive iodine. This cancer can be prevented by quickly distributing potassium iodide tablets. Ukraine immediately made such tablets available free in all the endangered area. Unfortunately, President Lukashenko of Belarus refused to make such medicine available; this resulted in many more cases of thyroid cancer in Belarusian children.

Priviat, the city near the reactor station, housed most of the station employees and families. It was evacuated after the incident and is still considered an exclusion zone. However, immediately wild life of all sorts moved into the area, because the humans had left. Today, many former residents, especially seniors, have moved back into their former homes. Medical teams regularly visit the site to determine the radiation levels, likely radiation doses, and possible health effects. From what I’ve read neither the humans nor the wildlife show major health effects. The reactions in western Europe were severe; farm fields we’re plowed under, foodstuffs were destroyed, and there was widespread panic. Recently, I read a Swedish announcement that the destruction of thousands of tonnes of salmon over concern of contamination from Chernobyl was totally unwarranted. I have a good friend in Warsaw who for several years measured wild mushrooms and other foodstuffs for radioactive contamination before export to other countries or sale in Poland.

I wish to add a final comment regarding Fukushima. The earthquake and tsunamis caused over 21,000 deaths in Japan. Four of the reactors at Fukushima Daiich were essentially destroyed and present a difficult and expensive cleanup problem. However, not a single person has died from radiation exposure or poisoning. It is a financial disaster; however, my impression is that the radiation issue is considered far worse than the terrible results of the natural disaster.

* These people volunteered to fly in helicopters over the burning reactors to dump sand and fire-retardant chemicals on the fire. They were told there was a strong probability they’d receive a lethal radiation dose. The maximum time over the reactor was less than one minute. The dead were honored posthumously with the highest award of the USSR, Hero of the Soviet Union.

_____________________

Thank you, doug reilly

Dr. T. Douglas Reilly, Los Alamos, New Mexico

Lack of inter-expert consensus on the effects of low dose, low dose rate radiation (e.g., LNT vs hormesis, existence vs lack of safe dose, effects posed by internal vs external exposure at the same dose) and lack of plain language explanation for radiation effects and radiation protection system (e.g., effective dose vs equivalent dose both in Sv) may lead to confusion and distrust, which might trigger emotional changes including fear and anger (in the accidental situation in particular). So, these may be considered in addition to education and other various factors already discussed about.

Previous studies have shown that public's perception of risk from nuclear technology depends generally on the following five factors, while those of nuclear experts are based on "facts" about the effect of radiation on human health:

1) Is the risk from the nuclear technology natural or man-made? (The public think that unavoidable, natural radiation is less harmful than that from the same amount of artificial radiation, such as one from a nuclear accident);

2) Does the public have power to choose the nuclear technology on their own or is it given to them by their government? (Probably in all countries, except for the US, nuclear industrial programs are implemented by governments);

3) Does the public know the technology well enough to understand it or not? (Radiation is invisible and unseen to them, leaving them to be afraid of it);

4) Does the public have right to control the technology or not? (For example, do they have right to shut down nuclear reactors?);

5) Does the technology benefit them directly or not? (Lower electricity price and less emission of carbon dioxide do not considered to be direct benefits to them).

The public appear to think that all answers to the five questions are negative, making the fact-based approach to persuade them not so successful so far. From this point of view, if nuclear industry wants to keep playing an important role in the future as it has done up to now, it should develop new strategies considering people's emotion and psychology.

Following

One approach to helping educate the public of evidence-based cost-benefit analysis of nuclear energy would be to encourage fact-respecting media outlets and policy makers to gather and distribute short video clips arguing the case for the relative safety of nuclear energy featuring truly well-informed experts. These experts might include the British scientist James Lovelock (famed for his Gaia Hypothesis), the American scientist James Hansen, the American ecologist Stewart Brand (author of the excellent book _Whole Earth Discipline: Why Dense Cities, Nuclear Power, Transgenic Crops, Restored Wildlands, and Geoengineering Are Necessary_, the Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker (author of _The Better Angels of our Nature--Why Violence Has Declined_), and Michael Shellenberger, president of Environmental Progress.

Another approach would be to use charts that demonstrate the relative safety of nuclear energy in comparison with fossil fuel burning power plants, such as what I attempted to download here as a gif.