[lbo-talk] Other perspectives on nuclear risks

[Wojtek S]

[WS:] The point is that graphs, charts and numbers do not speak for
themselves when the issue of safety is concerned.  The notion of
safety is socially constructed and entails the concept of "acceptable
risk" - which immediately beg the question, acceptable to whom?
Putting it bluntly the "acceptable risk" to a worker is not the same
as "acceptable risk" to the boss, a risk may be "acceptable" on the
"wrong" side of the tracks, but no so on the "right" side, and so on.

The bosses and PR spin doctors go to great lengths to create an
illusion of safety where none exists - see
http://leeclarke.com/mipages/mi.html (disclosure: the author was my
graduate advisor.)  and it is imperative for any critical thinker to
deconstruct those illusions.  But the anti-dote to PR spin is a
rational discourse, not fearmonegering.

However, if fearmongering leads to anti-capitalist political
mobilization, I am perfectly fine with it.

Wojtek

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Andy <andy274 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> [WS:] My point, exactly.  Thanks for posting this.
>
> [...]
>
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Sandy Harris <sandyinchina at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Blog post:
>>> http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/03/the-triumph-of-coal-marketing.html
>>>
>>> Dose chart:
>>> http://xkcd.com/radiation/
>
> These graphics illustrate my point too, oddly enough, at least the one
> I find more intellectually entertaining than estimates of the water
> remaining in pools nobody wants to risk examining.
>
> The latter chart has been widely circulated and is by a fellow whose
> background is in robotics and programming.  It looks about right as
> far as it goes, and in ordinary circumstances provides a useful scale
> for the radiation doses people normally get.  But in the current
> circumstances it doesn't tell you much useful about risk (here's the
> hint) anywhere not in direct sight of the Fukushima plant.  It tells
> you nothing about why the feds want everything, including the navy,
> cleared out for 50 miles.  It doesn't even tell you why fears of
> impending "radioactive clouds" in North America are overblown, or why
> the plant workers with the high boots got burned while the guy with
> the waders was unscathed.
>
> Now, I suppose it helps to have some background in physics and
> radiation safety to see this.   Yet an awful lot of technically
> learned people are appealing to that chart for reassurance, even while
> they evidently have little understanding of what it means in current
> events.
>
> Isn't that interesting, sociologically speaking?  Or should I be
> talking to an anthropologist?
>
> --
> Andy
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>