World Nuclear Association discussion on radiation protection
I just received a link to a fascinating podcast from the World Nuclear Association about the risks associated with attempting to protect the public from low doses of radiation. It was posted almost a month ago on October 14, 2014. I apologize for initially missing this important recording and failing to bring it to your attention.
Here is the quoted blurb about the discussion:
Roger Coates, IRPA; Malcolm Grimston, Imperial College Centre for Energy Policy and Technology; Willie Harris, Exelon Nuclear; Wolfgang Weiss, UNSCEAR debate key issues for radiological protection. Moderator: Jack Valentin
Thank you @arclight!
Thank you for posting the link to this critically important podcast.
Wasn’t much of a debate. There was nobody on the panel representing the opposing argument. Everyone on the panel agreed that there is little risk due to low dose radiation either to workers or the public even from an accident. Would have been more interesting with Bob Applebaum, EL or BAS on the panel representing the “no dose is a safe dose” side of the argument.
@JMS
I agree that it wasn’t really a debate, which is why I described it as a discussion.
It might have been more “interesting” in an entertainment sense if the panel had included a couple of stubborn, misinformed performers on the other “side” of the argument, but it would have been less informative, especially if it devolved into the kind of shouting match that passes for “debate” on commercial television.
That might be good theater that attracts a certain kind of audience, but it is not the best way to learn about a complex topic where there is a right and a wrong answer. I rarely introduced “debate” into my classes when I was teaching systems engineering or professional writing. It was, however, a fairly important component of the ethics classes that I taught.
Reminds me of a similar discussion we enjoyed in Australia recently:
Nuclear energy: the debate Australia has to have: http://youtu.be/4J06Vhlw52o
No, it wasn’t a debate, and the title didn’t explicitly claim so, but it was a valuable informative session free from poorly informed distraction. A few of the audience questioners toward the end were clearly there, not to learn, but to perpetuate misinformation, and they ended up looking very silly because I think we are finally past that here.
Good news Rod:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ON-US-House-passes-law-on-research-18111401.html