“Acceptable Risk” “Residual Risk” – more blah from the nuclear industry

a-cat-CANI studied the nuclear lobby’s schtick and came up with 3 main lies that they are pushing in the leadup to the December Paris conference:

  • “new Generation IV will solve the nuclear waste problem”
  • “low dose ionising rdaiation is OK – even good for you”
  • “nuclear power will solve climate change”

BUT – I missed an important one. They’ve got a new gee-whiz idea – called “ACCEPTABLE RISK”.
Australian nuclear propagandist Geoff Russell used this one in his submission to the South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission – as he argued that people falling off roofs with solar panels is a bigger health danger than Fukushima radiation.

They have another great way of confusing us (that’s the aim – confuse the world and delay action against a truly dangerous industry)  – they call it ‘residual risk”:

it is not meaningful to say that an activity or facility is safe or unsafe. The proper way to say it is that the residual risk is tolerable or acceptable given the benefits that are derived from this activity or facility. The NRRC is helping Japanese utilities to accurately quantify the residual risk from nuclear power plants so that measures can be taken to reduce it to as small a number as possible. –  (George Apostolakis, Japan News, 30/8/15)

Advertisements

One Response to ““Acceptable Risk” “Residual Risk” – more blah from the nuclear industry”

  1. Christina MacPherson Says:

    Reblogged this on nuclear-news.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: