In the first part of this trilogy I suggested that nuclear industry groupthink could be leading our communications to feed the fears we mean to allay as they rely on things like engineering and regulation that the public have reason to distrust.  This immediately led people to say, “OK then so what should we say”.  My response was that in order to know what to say we need to know not just what we have been getting wrong but what problem we are trying to solve and suggested that our challenge is that we are not just trying to hit a moving target but a target that doesn’t really exist at all.  Much of the fear of nuclear is not founded in any reality, it is just a feeling people have and it has all the substance of a wraith.  

You can’t kill a wraith with a hammer no matter how large or well-aimed it might be.  

The magnitude of the gulf between reality and people’s understanding of reality is enormous.  Nuclear is considered so dangerous by some that it could never be acceptable to them and yet these same people will advocate for windmills that do as much harm to humans and much more harm to our environment.  And yes, that’s true even when you add in the major nuclear accidents Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.  

Countering these concerns with facts can often cause cognitive dissonance because these facts do not align with their existing beliefs.  When that happens no matter what proof you have for your facts they will simply be rejected.  Cognitive dissonance is an impenetrable brick wall.  

But why do people treat nuclear differently and with such fear.  My theory is that it is at least partly because we make ourselves out to be different.  

Ironically, they deal with risk every day.  They know that any bite of food may kill them, or any car journey or even just stepping outside the door in the morning.  But these are risks with which they are familiar.  They don’t worry excessively about them unless someone tells them they have to.  And then they forget quickly. 

Radioactivity and radioactive material appear to be seen as different to anything else mankind does and something people feel they are unfamiliar with.  They fixate on the things that they believe create that differentiation like radioactive materials decay, radiation, the need for shielding and of course the much-misunderstood half-life. And they are scared of things that are different and with which they are unfamiliar.  

Our communications often confirm that differentiation and unfamiliarity by focusing on the issues that make us different.  The idea of radioactivity, decay, time and the longevity of some half-lives have become a major discussion point when it comes to the disposal of used fuel even though, in reality, they are largely irrelevant.  It is the transport mechanisms that make the real difference, and the transport mechanisms are the same whether something is radioactive or not.  After all the only risk arises from ingestion and many things in the repository are toxic forever, like many things we use on the surface. 

So, what if instead of highlighting how we are different we start to focus on the similarities between what we do and how everything else in life operates and draw attention to how familiar people are with radiation and radioactive materials.  Instead of affirming the unknowns what if we draw attention to where people are familiar with what we so that they grow comfortable with nuclear risk in the way they are comfortable with all the other risks they take. 

In one slight change in direction, we could strip agency from the anti-nuclear campaigns and build empathy with our own.

When talking about repositories instead of talking about how we will keep used fuel safe for a million years, we could instead talk about how a repository compares with a landfill where people seem happy to dispose of toxic materials.  Suddenly we have shifted from the backfoot to our front foot with a world leading solution to an ever-growing problem of toxic waste. 

If asked about dose instead of talking about ALARA we could talk about how we irradiate people to improve their health or how brazil nuts are 1,000 times more radioactive than most other foodstuffs (be careful about using the banana analogy as bananas are only as radioactive as most other foods and make almost no difference to body dose). 

We should grab every opportunity to point out where people are seeing radioactivity and radioactive materials in use such as in their smoke detectors or when they see people tracing drains as they walk along the street.  And remind them how they see its use in hospitals.

Where we are asked about hazards, instead of trying to show that technology completely removes the hazard, we could identify the magnitude of the hazard and compare it with other hazards people experience.  My response to people who point out that used fuel would kill you in seconds if you stood next to an unshielded bundle is to point out that if you drink the bleach under your sink death will be almost immediate but that while opportunities to drink bleach exist it will never be possible to stand next to an unshielded fuel bundle. 

Obviously it is not possible to list every example….but if we are all aware of the issue ….we can progressively change the narrative. Every time we are about to say something about nuclear, we could think “does this differentiate it or does it normalize it” and if it looks like it could differentiate it think about how that could be changed.  

Can I prove this will work?  Sadly, I cannot.  It’s obviously not going to have an instant result so a quick test is not possible, and one person would not make a difference anyway.  A lasting change will take many people and a lot of time.  And we can be sure that while instituting this change, we will provide oxygen to anti-nuclear groups and will cause cognitive dissonance.  This would be the result of any change.

But I think change is needed and an alternative has to be worth a try.  And this approach would not only mean being truthful about the industry it would communicate a truth about it.   Nuclear is not set apart from everything else mankind does, it’s just a part of a continuum of activities and it should be treated that way.