Nuc Eng


Reference Info
-->Outreach
Nuclear Outreach
(on communicating with the public, the media and the anti-nukes)

    Nuclear outreach is more than the technical facts; it is about placing the facts in the societal context and about engaging all stakeholders in a meaningful conversation. Herein you will find outreach material for your use and commentary on outreach activities. Your comments and contributions are invited. Contact me.

  • Presentation and resource material suitable for outreach activities
  • All Together Now...
    • Public perception is perhaps the central issue right now.  Something as big, complex, and important as nuclear power or medical isotopes needs to have provincial and federal backing just as education and  health care do.  That backing can take many forms and does not preclude that parts of the business cannot be given to the marketplace.  But it is important enough that its stability be guaranteed.  Politicians follow the almighty voter so if the public mood is sour on nuclear you can predict which way the federal and provincial governments are going to move, especially in times of fiscal deficits.  The issues are not technical in that we have proven that we can design, construct, operate and decommission plants safely, on budget and on schedule.  We also know how to take care of spent fuel technically.  Of course there are technical problems from time to time but we can deal, and have dealt, with that. 
    • Not that industry is entirely blameless, but most of the large time and cost overruns have been caused by political waffling, intervener interference from anti-nuclear groups whose goal is to block new builds, high interest rates in the past coupled with fiscal procedures that hobble, etc.  Again, once the politicians sense the public mood (votes) are not in favour of nuclear then funding is reduced on existing projects (AECL's NRU and MAPLE reactors, Ontario's operating fleet, etc.), maintenance gets the short shift and - lo and behold - management and technical staff don't have the where-with-all to do a proper job and technical performance drops.  That is what happened leading up to the mid-1990s when poor (literally) AECL and Ontario Hydro were blamed for dropping the ball.  Duh!  Ontario decided to go the nuclear route years ago and that was a solid decision that has provided reliable, clean and safe power and saved many lives via cleaner air and the availability of cheap medical isotopes.  But by not staying the course and not following through with continued support, permitting fringe groups to question and delay implementation without being held accountable, etc., I feel we, as a Canadian society, are paying a big price.  Due process, yes by all means.  But I firmly believe that one should not have rights without responsibilities.  And one cannot correctly assign a responsibility to someone to do a task without giving that person the authority and the means to carry out that task.  It seems to me that industry has the responsibilities but insufficient means, while those opposed to nuclear have the right but are not held responsible.  The governments have the right, the responsibility, and (if the public deems it so) the means.  Again, it comes back to the public.
    • Any activity involves some risk.  Nuclear is no exception.  We have calculated the risk to be small and it has proven to be so.  A lot of the reason why nuclear costs have been high can be traced back to the public perception of risk associated with small amounts of radiation.  Many people are terrified of what is a very small, if not zero, risk.  Consequently, at every turn, implementation of nuclear is impeded to the point that we get mired down.  It is very sad really because the replacement power has to come from coal, oil and gas.  The increase in pollution from fossil fuels kills thousands each year, mainly those with respiratory problems if you can trust the medical stats.  Maybe those people would have died anyway but you can explain that to their loved ones, not me.  And the added cost of getting mired down in implementing nuclear because of irresponsible intervener actions and having to pursue alternate means, ie the added cost of inefficiently and half-heartily following a path, has the direct effect of having less resources to spend on other things - like improved health care. 
    • Either we are in the game or not.  Half measures are a dangerous (literally) waste of time and money.  Lobbying can work to a degree but if the public is not behind nuclear then it just won't happen.  So public outreach is the key issue.  I am not in favour of sales pitches and sales tactics.  What we nuclear folks need to do is engage in conversations to help people think about the issues correctly.  If the public in the end chooses to reject nuclear then so be it.  If they are properly informed and have correctly weighed the pros and cons, then that is the right decision to make as a society.  My wife was a social worker dealing with pregnant teenagers.  She wisely insisted on the girl taking responsibility for the decision to abort, keep or give up for adoption.  My wife made sure the girl had all the facts for each option and supported her in her choice irrespective of her choice.  The public deserves no less.  The onus is now on us all to pull together through outreach activities to engage the public as they make decisions about how society is to proceed.
  • How should we organize ourselves?
    • So what does this mean for the Canadian Nuclear Enterprise which includes, industry, universities, societies, the regulator, governments, the public, etc.? What respective role does each stakeholder play? What challenges and opportunities?  Universities tend to be the trusted source of unbiased knowledge. They are a good balance between being arms-length but close enough to be informed. Societies like the Canadian Nuclear Society (CNS) are an invaluable voice of the individual professional and are also more or less arms-length. The regulator is a trustworthy source but they must tread carefully to maintain their neutrality. Industry and industry associations can provide the facts (subject to verification by independent review of course) and they have the most resources on tap. But they of course have a vested interest so are suspect in the eyes of the public.
    • I think the Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA) can be the mother hen that looks at the whole industry and takes ownership of the role of stewardship, of supporting a nuclear journal, of supporting CANTEACH (http://canteach.candu.org ), UNENE (www.unene.ca ) (yes, I have a slight bias here), of supporting professional development, etc.  But the more central and critical issue for the CNA to address is government / society commitment to nuclear.  If there is no game, the rest is moot.  The CNA does not necessarily need to do the work themselves but they need to make sure that balls are not being dropped.  The CNA represents the big central players in the game.  No other group has the resources or the continuity or the authority to be the mother hen now that AECL is being broken up and OH was broken up.  The CNA is not alone in Canada's nuclear enterprise of course.  It doesn't represent the voice of the public, the universities, the societies (notably the Canadian Nuclear Society - www.cns-snc.ca ) and the many individuals out there that constitute the mix.  I am very please to see the CNA ramp up their outreach activities.  But they can't do it alone.
  • How to proceed in outreach activities:
    1. General Approach
      1. Collect our arguments and facts, presentations, and other resources in one place on an open, arms-length web site for all to use.
      2. Engage people and get them to think through the issues.  Actually listen to what they have to say and address those issues with them, not at them.
      3. Be open and transparent as an industry.  Build trust at every opportunity.  Never betray that trust.  Never.  All this comes naturally when one cares about others (preachy but true nonetheless).
      4. Have your message ready. Here's what is in my wallet on a slip of paper:
        1. We are professionals here to inform and to help others make informed decisions.
        2. We are held accountable for what we say and do.
        3. There is risk in all we do.
        4. LNT should not be used for risk assessment.
      5. If a reporter calls, take a few moments to get your thoughts together and call him or her back. What message do you have?
    2. Radiation
      1. Show that radiation is common and help make it become a familiar thing.  It's all around us, etc.  Geiger counters in schools, etc.
      2. Discuss the misuse of LNT for risk assessment.  Discuss the threshold theory and hormesis and the implications on regulation.
      3. Recognize that people are disproportionately fearful of radiation (the outrage thing) and so have a different notion of risk than we do within the industry.
      4. See Radiation Information for facts and links you might find useful.
    3. Risk
      1. Actively compare the real and estimated risks to other forms of power generation.
      2. Use accidents as an opportunity to do the items above. Accidents do cause setbacks naturally but because the nuclear industry does treat the risks seriously and design for those risks, the actual body counts are commendably low.  That works in our favour as much if not more than it does against us.
      3. See The Risk of Energy Production for facts and links you might find useful.
    4. Cost
      1. Costs for nuclear power are quite competitive on a per kw-hr or kw installed basis. See The Economics of Nuclear Power by the World Nuclear Association for instance. But nuclear plants are capital intensive so that is indeed an issue that cannot be left solely to private enterprise.
      2. See Costs for more.
    5. Used fuel management
      1. Storing used fuel has been shown to not be much of a technical issue. But it is an issue of social acceptance. See the bullet on safeguards and waste management below.
    6. Legacy
      1. Acknowledge that the legacy we leave our future generations is certainly important. But this must be balanced against the good we can do today by empowering the current generation in the developed and the developing worlds.
      2. Discuss the notion of discount rates for the future. If we don't discount the future (and hence future generations) then logically all of our efforts and resources should go towards the future, leaving nothing for now. It might help to recognize that we are our ancestors' future generation. What extra effort would we ask of them, if we could, to ease our burden today?
  • On the role of emotions and fear. Facts are not enough.
    • Bloom's hierarchy of the learning domain defines:
    • We can toil away in the cognitive domain till we are blue in the face (as in Joe Friday's "just the facts m'am") but it will do no good unless the audience is actually listening, willing to internalize the input, compare it to values already held, and is open and receptive to new ideas that likely will displace older and deeply accepted (fully internalized) beliefs.  We engineers have a pretty good grasp and are quite comfortable in the cognitive (knowledge) domain.  We're not so adroit in the affective domain. 
    • There is no point in shouting from the rooftops when people are huddled in the basement.
    • Worth considering: People like and remember stories. It has been said that incorrect stories are not countered or corrected so much as they are replaced by better stories.
    • Consider your own deeply held beliefs. Maybe we should be asking ourselves that it would take for us, as individuals, to change our belief system so that we get some idea what we are up against. What would it take for you to change those beliefs? What would drive you to feel the need to reassess your beliefs? Maybe the best we can hope for is to get other people to think through their belief systems with us.  Maybe the penny will drop then. 
    • People are not really interested in buying your story per se but they are interesting in having their problems solved. The corollory to this is that you will likely get more buy in is you don't try to sell. That is why I say that what we nuclear folks need to do is engage in conversations to help people think about the issues correctly. 
  • On what people really are against.
    • George Monbiot of the UK Guardian wrote an article on May 2 entitled "Let's face it: none of our environmental fixes break the planet-wrecking project". It is an admission of the ineffectiveness of the green movement. See www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/02/environmental-fixes-all-greens-lost. It is good that people like Monbiot are coming to grips with reality but what I found interesting was the statement in the 4th paragraph:
      "Infrastructure is ugly, destructive and controlled by remote governments and corporations. These questions are so divisive because the same world-view tells us that we must reduce emissions, defend our landscapes and resist both the state and big business. The four objectives are at odds."
      I think this cuts to the core issue that is centrally relevant when we do nuclear outreach. Nuclear requires what we almost universally resist as individuals: government control and big business, ie the loss of the individual. It is an emotional rejection of 'life in the factory' and the seeming loss of control over ones life and all that ails us. Intellectually we know that this very factory is what is responsible for the high quality of life that we enjoy. Emotionally we feel that it is our power to pollute and, worse, the power to sustain large populations that pollute more, that is the problem. So it is hard to accept the notion that the disease will be cured by more disease. We can and should enter into discussions about comparative nuclear risk, cost, low doses of radiation, environmental footprint and so on. But while doing so we need to be aware that the core issue is not nuclear per se. For want of a better label, it is 'life in the factory' that is the issue. One symptom of this is the Outrage that Sandman speaks of.
    • Maybe when we are doing outreach we could, at some natural point in the conversation, bring up the point about 'life in the factory'.  It, at the very least, is a point of agreement - who doesn't feel like a little cog in the machine at some point in our lives.  Sometimes the simple acknowledgement of a worry, a mutual worry at that, goes a long way in breaking down barriers and getting at the nub.  I don't suggest this as a means of selling our ideas or winning people over per se.  I suggest this as a natural way to get at the real issues that bother people, to work with others to come to a mutual understanding, and to finding a path forward.
  • On the issue of safeguarding nuclear reactors and long-lived nuclear waste into the future.
    • The nuclear enterprise entails the handling of significant quantities of hazardous materials.  Trust of the establishment and of stable governance into the future is certainly an issue.   How can safety be ensured through political unrest and other significant governance changes that might happen at sometime in the future?  We can ask that question of many of the legacies that we are leaving the future generations - fossil fuel depletion, pollution, toxic waste (that has an infinite half-life), social inequity and injustice, billions in extreme poverty, etc.  In the case of nuclear power and radiation, it is the risk of people dying. 
    • So let's dig a bit deeper into which human deaths are more important to you?  Future generations?  Current family and friends?  People currently living in far off places?  I ask this because if the objective is to minimize the number of deaths for a given path forward chosen then we need to know how to estimate the death count for each postulated path forward, ie how to integrate risk over space and time.  For starters, we must apply a discount rate to future deaths (that may or may not happen).  If I don't discount the future to some degree then saving ALL future generations (from hypothetical deaths) dominate over the much lower numbers at risk today.  We'd end up spending all our resources in prevention of distant future hypothetical deaths rather than focusing on immediate needs.  For similar reasons we care more about those closer to us physically and emotionally.  Presumably people close to you are more valuable that distant people you don't know.  So there is a space discount rate too.  Uncomfortable with making a risk calculation that requires putting a value on human life?  We do it all the time because we must.  Should I buy a Prius to step lightly on the earth thus helping to save the planet for future generations or should I drive a more substantial vehicle to lower the risk to my family?
    • We can't be absolutely sure about future political follies so we can't be sure that what we create today will not be misused in the future.  All we can do is weigh the odds and safeguard as best we can .  But are you sure that picking a nuclear free path will lower the projected number of deaths?  See http://www.nuceng.ca/refer/risk/risk.htm .  Solar, wind and hydro are not benign.  Nor can they meet energy demands worldwide.  So 'no nukes' means more fossil which means more deaths.  Nuclear waste can be safely and securely stored and would hardly be the preferred terrorist weapon given the ready availability of conventional weapons, including biological weapons. We also have a pretty good handle on real-world death rates when nuclear goes terribly wrong.  The actual body count is actually pretty low compared to the wild estimates of the fear mongers.  TMI and Fukushima death totals?  Zero.  Chernobyl?  31.  Don't believe the wild Chernobyl estimates you hear about; they are bogus numbers based on the misuse of the Linear No-threshold Theory (LNT) since there are no observable negative effects due to low doses of radiation over large populations.
    • I have trouble too with the logic of rejecting a path because it has some negative aspects.  In truth, there are a lot of other aspects that need to be factored in before a conclusion on appropriate actions can be reached.  Quantification and comparison of risks and benefits are needed to reach a conclusion. Some people have argued for the precautionary principle, which states that even if we are wrong in our fears the consequences are so large that we should act to protect ourselves against the possibility. That's fine as long as the opportunity cost is acceptable. In this case, this is neither evident nor has it been demonstrated.
    • It seems pretty unethical to me to reject nuclear knowing the alternatives will lead to far more deaths based on the data we have at hand (comparative death rates from various energy sources).  Personally, I am more moved by actual death rates and sound projected rates than I am by imagined nightmares.
    • So in short, we don't need to trust in stable and predictable governance so much as we need to make proper estimates of the real risks and design in the appropriate safeguards.  Let's empower people (and we need power/energy to do that) to raise the standard of living worldwide so there is a reduced need for violence, let's empower women worldwide, let's promote fair energy trade and energy independence (read: get out of the middle east), etc.  But let's not dismiss nuclear out of an unquantified fear.
  • Worth repeating: Lessons learned from debates with the anti nukes:
    1. Always keep a smile on your face. [Comment: I interpret this to be pleasant as a default. To be always smiling is just a tad artificial.]
    2. Never sit down (because it removes your psychological advantage). [Comment: Surely this is context dependent but I take the point.]
    3. When the anti-nuke comes at you spraying statements like a machine gun, respond by saying "I'll be happy to answer your questions but I need them one at a time."
    4. When the anti-nuke uses a word with several meanings, ask for a definition so you both will be talking about the same thing. 
    5. When the anti-nuke questions the truth of your statements, respond by saying, "I cannot afford to tell you anything but the truth because I am held accountable and my company is held accountable for what I say.  To whom are you held accountable?"
      [Source: Nuclear News, July, 2005, page 10, letter to the editor from Carolyn B. Meigs, Danville, Va., on pro-nuclear tips, partial quote.]