We are all talking to each other but is anybody out there really listening?
Was just in Oxford where I gave a lecture to the WNU Summer institute – a great group of young people who are committed to working in the nuclear industry and doing what they think is best for their and our collective futures. Oxford is a great place to quietly contemplate recent events and consider whether or not we are going in the right direction. (Not to mention I enjoyed having lunch in the “Harry Potter” dining hall).
As were many, I was interested in the recent paper written by Ten Hoeve and Mark Jacobson from Stanford University, ‘Worldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident’ published in the journal Energy and Environmental Science basically predicting that there will be 130 cancer deaths globally from the Fukushima accident. While it would easy to simply accept this outcome since the number of deaths is relatively low, especially in the context of the large number of deaths caused by the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, the study has been criticized as poor science – and very effectively by Mark Lynas. It is not the criticism that I find interesting but the comments on Mark’s blog by those both supporting and opposing the study, including the authors. Now I don’t want to spend my time discussing the study as in my opinion Mark did a fine job – but rather the implications of the two sides debating it.
I recently read “The Believing Brain” by Dr. Michael Shermer (as well as some other stuff) that helps to create some understanding of the situation that we find ourselves in. What I found fascinating about the debate on the Stanford study is not whether or not it is accurate or nonsense, but the fact that independent of the facts, the chance of either side changing their opinion in any way based on the debate is effectively zero. Or in other words as clearly stated by Michael Shermer – beliefs come first – we then look for information to support these beliefs and the more we investigate the stronger we believe. We have natural filters to dismiss opposing views and carefully collect supporting evidence for our position.
The issue is important because we as scientists and engineers love to believe that if only we can better educate the public then they will come around to see what we so obviously see. Well, unfortunately nothing can be further from the truth. Most peoples’ beliefs are so embedded that no matter how much more information is provided, they are most unlikely to change their point of view.
Let’s come back to the fundamental issue of concern. The public generally believes that nuclear power is inherently dangerous. So what we really need to do is to try and understand where these beliefs come from and then work to get to the source and see if over time we can change some of these perceptions. And frankly as I have stated before, we are inadvertent contributors to this belief as we in the industry love to explain how difficult it is to manage nuclear power and how seriously we take safety thus reinforcing that it must be very dangerous indeed.
I visited the Atomic Test Site Museum in Las Vegas a couple of weeks back and it is obvious that the association of nuclear power with nuclear weapons is a powerful one. In the museum there was mention of TMI and Chernobyl as examples of when the peaceful use of this technology went wrong. And this even translates to popular culture. In the recent Batman movie, the core of a new advanced fusion reactor is designed for good to power the world and yet is removed and transformed into a weapon of mass destruction in mere moments by a very smart scientist (although apparently there is only one such smart guy). While only a movie the connection between atomic weapons and power is simple and clear.
Going back to the debate over the Stanford study, let’s consider other examples that I have used in the past. First we recently had the final report released on the cause of the Air France crash out of Brazil a couple of years back. It found root causes, suggested corrective actions and that was that. There is no “anti flying” group that came out and said, “see – look what happened here – clearly air travel is too dangerous and it should be abolished.” In fact we laugh at the thought of it. Yet more people died on this one flight than the nuclear industry has killed in its entire history. This is because we fundamentally believe that air travel is safe. That’s not to say that at some level of accidents, the public would stop flying – but where is this level? I don’t know.
The same with the organic food farming incident in Germany. Killed 50 hospitalized 4000 and there is no anti organic food group writing reports on the dangers of organic farming and calling for an end to it.
Yet every nuclear incident is more proof of why nuclear power shouldn’t exist. As told to me by my very talkative taxi driver in Vegas on the way to the airport- we have solar and wind, we don’t really need nuclear power. The implication being that we all know nuclear power is dangerous and that if we have alternatives, we should use them first.
Of course the truth is actually the opposite. Nuclear power is economic, clean, efficient, reliable and concentrated using very little land. This makes it a great option for long term power production, not the option of last resort.
So if we can’t change people’s minds through education alone, what do we do next? Well, an unexpected event or crisis is what will cause some people to revisit their beliefs. In this case the recent crisis is negative for the industry (Fukushima) so many are now questioning nuclear power. Yet somehow in a number of countries support for nuclear power remains strong.
In the UK, support for nuclear power is rising, even following Fukushima and with their close neighbours Germany deciding to abandon their nuclear program. Why is this? Well one thought is that the British understand that they are in dire need of electricity and are very concerned about being overly dependent upon gas from Russia (the crisis). Another contributing factor would be the post Fukushima conversion of George Monbiot to nuclear supporter. He is credible with the public and has taken tough stands on many popular issues. There is no doubt that if he changed his mind on nuclear that is food for thought to the public.
In the US, energy independence is an important issue. Americans do not want to be overly dependent upon middle eastern states for their energy and are looking for ways to be more self sufficient. Nuclear power is one option to help them solve this issue. But of course this support can be somewhat fragile unless we get to the root of the public’s concerns. For example, now in the US, gas prices are low once again allowing another viable option to overtake increasing support for nuclear.
So what am I getting to here? Well let’s put in one final quote from Dan Gardner’s book “Future Babble” which is actually a quote from Leon Festinger. “Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart. Suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong; what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before.” (I really liked this book and will cite it further in a future post.)
So does this mean the situation is hopeless? Not at all but we must fundamentally change how we approach the problem. We need to make use of experts as do other industries to better understand the driving issues behind negative views on nuclear power and then address the root cause. We must accept that the task at hand is large and may take a generation to accomplish and most of all we must acknowledge that there will be setbacks along the way. We must bring credible opinion leaders on side and we must have a global concentrated effort to demonstrate the benefits of nuclear power with simple focused and effective messages; but most of all provide a better understanding of the risks and note that the doomsday scenario is for the comics and not for real life.
I would like to know your thoughts on how we should work together as an industry going forward to really make headway on this important issue of the power of belief. After all, as are those who disagree with us, we are all committed to our beliefs – so how can we make the progress we need to bring more understanding and support for our answer to global energy needs?
9 Comments
Marcel Hilmer · August 20, 2012 at 3:53 am
Milt
Your blog hits the main issues with the image of nuclear power and the challenges facing the industry. I doubt the industry can perceptibly change community views for the time being but a coordinated effort is worthwhile. The emotive nature of nuclear power and the “evils” associated with its sinister use date back 70 years and therefore any chance of even limited success is dependent, in my view, on independent and factual reporting from well respected organizations. We can’t just say that nuclear is clean, safe, low cost, etc. as these statements, coming from the self interest of the industry, will be rejected or ignored by the media and community in general. I have experienced this on many occasions when speaking in favor of nuclear power.
Having a factual creditable report is an essential start and then we need a coordinated approach to the dissemination of that information by the industry and each of those who are involved. There will be a substantial cost associated with this process and all concerned; from uranium juniors to nuclear processing groups need to financially contribute. This is really a case of small steps over a prolonged period of time. Best, Marcel
Anonymous Nuke Communications Professional · August 21, 2012 at 2:20 pm
The best defense is a good offense. Information about the nuclear industry very rarely reaches the public unless it is bad news: accidents, cost overruns, regulatory disputes, weapons etc. And even that information is delivered through the twisted, controversy amplifying, click-hungry, media who’s content in heavily influenced by advertiser dollars- not by experts or trained nuclear PR professionals. Why do you think we see so much outright wrong information about nuclear in the media? The nuclear industry doesn’t even try to get the ball.
**We aren’t doing our job properly as an industry.** We need to come to terms with the fact that we are the problem- and take steps to do better.
The nuclear industry must craft a solid, positive, easy to understand platform and stand on it- and it needs to be big enough that lots of other people can join us- environmentalists, mothers, politicians, teachers, climate scientists, basically everyone who isn’t currently an anti-nuke activists. We need to carefully and intentionally bring attention to the nuclear industry and responsibly manage our “brand” of energy.
It is actually quite easy to do this: hire the best, brightest PR and outreach professionals- give them a big budget- and let them fix the problem. Don’t create a situation where the group is sponsored by companies that are more invested in fossils or renewables than nuclear- because that conflict of interest takes away the ability to market the benefits of nuclear effectively (like most of the groups here in the US). And lawyer up- we should be threatening lawsuits every single time someone says something false about nuclear on the record- period. No other industry would ever let bold face lies about them persist so long without taking legal action. Nuclear isn’t special- we just need to do what ever single other energy source out there has already done, and we will have more public support- which will translate to more political support- which will translate to more nuclear energy, advanced reactors, etc.
I’ve been advocating specific ways to do this for years, but unfortunately the industry wouldn’t know a good outreach plan if it bit them on the rear. Everyone loves to talk about doing better outreach, but outright refuse to actually do anything differently. In fact, the industry currently (and for the past 50 or so) thinks good outreach is sending engineers and scientists (who are not trained to work with kids, and are often not very good public speakers) into classrooms to share information which is often not age appropriate/not presented in fun ways- it’s pretty much the least effective form of outreach imaginable. No wonder there is a workforce shortage. And no wonder pop culture portrays nuke scientists as creepy and dangerous.
Even the elaborate and insanely expensive conference cycle of the industry- it is completely prohibitive to the media and the public both in content and cost. There are no easy entry points even people who want to learn about nuclear. And no free pens with your logo on them doen’t count as outreach.
Many nuclear professionals have a bad habit of thinking that their science degree make them experts at everything- including communications. Well, guess what- it absolutely does not. And don’t even get me started on how outdated the nuclear industry is on gender issues- sheesh.
We have to communicate with people in ways they can understand. Instead of unrealistically expecting the public to learn to speak our native tongue of science- we should hire some PR professionals who speak lay language and let them deal with the public. The important information is currently getting lost in translation- and it is the responsibility of the nuclear industry to fix it. Not the media, not the public- the nuclear industry. We need to stop saying the system is broken, the media is awful, the public doesn’t care- and do our job already and *sell* people nuclear power.
Dan Meneley · August 21, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Sure there are dedicated opponents to the world nuclear energy enterprise. There may even be a few energy giants working hard to prevent this excellent technology from taking away their lucrative market share.
But unless the polls (supposedly conducted by PR experts) are wrong, more than half the people in North America support the use of more nuclear energy for the generation of reliable electricity. If President Obama had such a positive margin he’d be “coasting” to an easy victory.
I see plenty of reasons to do this job well, to the very best of our ability. I see plenty of reasons to teach, discuss, and learn how to present a happy truth to everyone — the truth that the world does NOT face an energy supply crisis. But I see no reason at all for despair.
Anonymous Nuke Communications Professional · August 21, 2012 at 5:22 pm
Dan,
I think the polls are asking the wrong questions. More than half of Americans can’t name a fossil fuel. More than half of Americans think that nuclear omits CO2. So, if more than half of Americans support nuclear energy it doesn’t really matter because they don’t actually even begin to undertand what they supposedly support, how it’s built, what it costs, what it means in terms of the environment and human prosperity- especially when compared to other options.
Right now the nuclear industry is essentially owned and operated by fossil fuel companies. Which is why the nuclear industry rarely says anything bad about fossils. The problem is that people really only become *active* nuclear supporters (like in the way that people demand renewables, not just accept them) when they have the clear comparison of how it compared to fossils- in terms of lives per KWH, public health, environmental impacts, climate change- all of the invisible cost of fossils, which we can’t bring up. This is why our current PR has no teeth. Americans are largely in the dark on energy issues in general, which has lead to very bad decision making.
So there lies the despair- we don’t have to have an energy crisis- but we are still acting like we do- warring for limited fossil fuels, destroying the health of our oceans, and damaging our own ecosystem- even tough we don’t have to.
Bob · August 22, 2012 at 7:39 am
I strongly suggest reading Spencer Weart’s “The Rise of Nuclear Fear” http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674052338 for a brilliant analysis of the historical and even mythological basis of the public perception of radiation and nuclear technology. Coupled with an understanding of risk perception (another fascinating, if deposing topic), this really shows what we’re up against.
People are influenced more by stories than by data so it’s vital to communicate by narrative. I also find asking questions is sometimes more helpful than simply explaining; it’s more participatory, helps establish a dialogue, and lets people “own” their conclusion. I’m under no illusion this will work with everyone; as pointed out, one is unlikely to change their outlook to fit the facts if they have so much of their identity invested in their position. Still, by telling a compelling evidence-based narrative, we should make better headway against the popular myth and well-crafted lies promulgated by Greenpeace, et. al.
John Brian Shannon · August 30, 2012 at 9:52 pm
An excellent, well-written article. I am grateful that I have come across it today!
But while everything you say appears to be true, it can also be true that nuclear energy cannot supply all of our electricity needs, indefinitely.
I have written about energy, nuclear power and sustainable energy and the economics, thereof.
Please see two of my articles on these topics. Thank you.
Cheers! John Brian Shannon
http://www.ecopoint.asia/2012/07/09/the-energy-ball-is-in-our-court/
http://energyboom.com/emerging/new-modular-nuclear-reactor
Rod Adams · October 7, 2012 at 6:17 am
First of all, hat tip to Meredith Angwin @yes_VY for the link to the pro nuclear blog that has somehow flown under my radar. Some of you are getting really close to an answer with the potential for success – especially Anonymous Nuke Communications Professional.
Our biggest challenge is to learn to think like a normal commercial enterprise that has a useful product whose sales are hampered by a bad public image. We need to unabashedly develop marketing and branding efforts that overcome the false impressions. We need to give people a reason to change their minds – perhaps by helping them understand that they might have been purposely fed false information by some of our competitors.
The Oil Companies are a useful foil; even if it is not a complete truth, the reality is that people who sell natural gas have a huge reason to fight nuclear energy and it just so happens that nearly every gas producer is also an Oil Company.
There is a growing discontent with Big Renewable as well. It is not just the Solyndras of the world, but there are people who recognize that GE, Siemens, and Vestas are completely dependent on government handouts for their wind businesses.
@Bob – I recently read Weart’s excellent book, but I found an interesting gap in his presentation. He talked a lot about how images and connections in created media like books and movies have played a role in reinforcing fear, but he never really talked much about why the creators chose to use those images to reinforce fear of nuclear energy. He did not explore the very long running relationship between oil & gas money and the entertainment business.
I also just recently read Upton Sinclair’s classic titled “Oil”. One of the plot lines in that book involved an oil magnate who had sponsored many movie productions that portrayed the oil business in a favorable light. He understood how damaging drilling was and how little trust people had in the people making enormous fortunes in Southern California oil fields.
The information from those diverse books collided in my mind and created a new line of thinking. I believe it is probable that people similar to the tycoon in “Oil” recognized the value of sponsoring and promoting creative works that reinforced fear about their nuclear competition.
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
PS – it would be great if Anonymous Nuke Communications Professional made contact with me. There is a contact form on Atomic Insights.
Paul Fehrenbach · October 9, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Excellent stuational analysis Milt. It is true that in trying to convince others of what seems to us a logical path forward to sustainable energy, “we should seek first to understand…” their position(s). Further to your references to Shermer and Gardner, I would add “Thinking Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman, and “Risk – The Science and Politics of Fear” by Dan Gardner as useful references in helping us to understand how we all come to form perceptions and turn them into beliefs which are hard (but not impossible) to alter.
In terms of what can we do, I think you are on the right track in recommending the industry needs to get opinion leaders on side, including elected opinion leaders. This will require giving them a constant stream of publicly available positive information and facts which they can use to support their position, including comparisons with alternatives. Of course this requires a renewed investment by the industry in knowledgable people to generate and assemble the information into useable formats. (Do you think this is what the oil industry is currently up to?)
I also think the industry needs to maintain its focus on quality and safety. It is not a bad thing and helps public confidence to be seen to be an industry leader in these areas – the airlines were there early on and even hospitals are getting there now.
Rick Maltese · October 31, 2012 at 4:00 am
Paul. You are quite right about getting opinion leaders to take a stand. If only respected leaders like Obama ( I’m serious) or even a silly celebrity like Tom Hanks or John Stewart were to endorse nuclear energy that would have a ripple effect. The fence sitters can be won over. Bill Gates supports nuclear but for some reason (maybe he’s too clever) he does not even try his ideas in the US.
Also I see strategy needs to come into play. Yes most here agree that nuclear energy could potentially rescue civilization from severe global warming and other devastating effects of a constant release of pollution from coal plants and other fossil fuel burning, but remember to tread lightly in the AGW debate. Calling nuclear energy a tool to fight AGW will have a negative effect. The knowable issues are plenty great enough to hail nuclear energy into action. In the same way that a session on educating the public about nuclear energy should not include discussion about nuclear weapons, this is also true for “climate change” or AGW. If a fence sitter can draw that conclusion on their own then it is much more powerful a discovery.
Comments are closed.