3 ms·

The response to this should be to honestly discuss data about the risk and realistic case studies of previous accidents so that professionals actually want to a

The response to this should be to honestly discuss data about the risk and realistic case studies of previous accidents so that professionals actually want to act safely. I worked for three years at LANL (nothing nuclear), and the actual response will be to force everyone to watch an intellectually insulting video and take a quiz where all the answers are "check with my manager before I do anything", further fermenting a distain and distrust for procedure. Unfortunately, the gut response "I am appalled; this must change" by folks who don't know anything about how the lab operates (i.e., lay citizens and politicians) exerts pressure toward the latter, not the former.

raverbashing 9y ago
Agreed. And I also agree with treating these issues with more intelligence and less red tape
AmVess 9y ago
If you are handling plutonium and safety isn't an innate approach, then you shouldn't be handling anything more dangerous than bubble gum.
- jessriedel 9y ago
  Nuclear material workers have much lower rates of job-related accidents and illness than many (probably most) other jobs. Much lower lifetime radiation doses than flight attendants, for example.
  - roenxi 9y ago
    I've seen this happen in other industry (I'm thinking mining for ore). The evidence was pretty solid that safety standards in the workplace are considerably higher than at home. Even relative to other industries performance was good. This is only opinion, but I thought: 1) This was a good state to be in 2) It was bought on by ignorance of lay people and politicians who didn't understand relative risk 3) The situation reflected well on our political system functioning well without being very logical It drives me crazy that we hold nuclear to a higher standard again even though the cost/benefit ratio appears to be better than many other industrial and non-industrial activities (eg, driving cars, using coal). People will cheerfully say 'but nuclear ... causes X', but rarely compare that with the benefits that were bought for X.

raverbashing 9y ago

Agreed. And I also agree with treating these issues with more intelligence and less red tape

AmVess 9y ago

If you are handling plutonium and safety isn't an innate approach, then you shouldn't be handling anything more dangerous than bubble gum.

jessriedel 9y ago
Nuclear material workers have much lower rates of job-related accidents and illness than many (probably most) other jobs. Much lower lifetime radiation doses than flight attendants, for example.
- roenxi 9y ago
  I've seen this happen in other industry (I'm thinking mining for ore). The evidence was pretty solid that safety standards in the workplace are considerably higher than at home. Even relative to other industries performance was good. This is only opinion, but I thought: 1) This was a good state to be in 2) It was bought on by ignorance of lay people and politicians who didn't understand relative risk 3) The situation reflected well on our political system functioning well without being very logical It drives me crazy that we hold nuclear to a higher standard again even though the cost/benefit ratio appears to be better than many other industrial and non-industrial activities (eg, driving cars, using coal). People will cheerfully say 'but nuclear ... causes X', but rarely compare that with the benefits that were bought for X.