I was taught by my parents while growing up that you must either tell the truth or face the consequences. Recently,
I came across a prime example of this moral teaching in practice. Unfortunately it is at variance to my parent's version;
it is NRC style.
Misleading statements
Immediately after the September 11 attacks, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) and the nuclear industry issued statements asserting that U.S. reactor containments were designed to withstand the crash
of a fully loaded jumbo jet. Within days, both had to recant and admit that the opposite was the case. Just hours after the
terrorist attacks, NRC spokesperson Breck Henderson said U.S. nuclear plants were safe because “containment structures
are designed to withstand the impact of a 747.”
Ten days later he admitted that “the initial cut we had
on that was misleading.” In a formal statement, the agency conceded that it “did not specifically contemplate
attacks by aircraft such as Boeing 757s and 767s, and nuclear power plants were not designed to withstand such crashes.”
A similar pattern of assurance followed by retraction characterized the behavior of public relations personnel for a number
of specific nuclear sites.
(Excerpt from Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January/February 2002, Vol
58, No. 1, pp. 38-44, The NRC: What me worry? by Daniel Hirsch)
For more information please follow the links:
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2002/jf02/jf02hirsch.html
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/2002/nct2002a.htm
I personally know NRC spokesperson Breck Henderson. I worked with him at the NRC
region 4 offices in Arlington, Texas for several years. He was always open and friendly to me. That is, before December
21, 2000 when they fired me in retaliation for turning in members of NRC senior management for criminal misconduct.
After that, I never heard from NRC spokesperson Breck Henderson again. Chalk up another casualty to "the chill factor".
It all kind of makes sense now. However, one thing is hard for me to understand.
Mr. Henderson, NRC Senior Public Affairs Officer, region 4 was allegedly a former reporter and journalist prior to joining
the NRC, region 4 as their spokesperson. It is my opinion and belief that his training and experience should have prevented
any statements containing false or misleading information from being supplied to the press or media. What about the basic
and standard practice of journalistic confirmation of information from more than one source? I believe that even a freshman
journalist would have obtained a concurrence of sources and varification of facts prior to publishing information as
important to public safety and confidence as his assertion that U.S. reactor containments were designed to withstand the crash
of a fully loaded jumbo jet, etc.
Did Mr. Henderson and the NRC tell the truth? Appearances are that they did not.
And guess what? They had to pay the consequences. The consequences, at least in this situation, consisted of his admitting
to the world that “the initial cut we had on that was misleading.” In a formal statement, the agency conceded
that it “did not specifically contemplate attacks by aircraft such as Boeing 757s and 767s, and nuclear power plants
were not designed to withstand such crashes.”
You see, it's a matter of tell the truth or pay the consequences. The NRC had
to admit they were incorrect. Oops! There goes their credibility. We have to wonder; if they were wrong about
this one situation, what else are they wrong about? This is serious business folks, because the NRC is in business to
be correct, in-the-right and rule over, and judge, those they find to be wrong. Also remember the factor of public safety.
How can we be safe if the NRC allegedly makes a practice of being wrong? There are multimillion dollar fines and criminal
charges handed down by these people. Who judges them when they are wrong? To whom do they pay their fines?
I believe you will find that "we the public" are the ones that will pay the price.
What is troubling to me is that the "so called" NRC experts set themselves up
as judge and jury in matters of nuclear power plant licensing, operation and security. They also reign over matters
involving nuclear medicine.
Are we dealing here with a simple mistake, or a willful dissemination of NRC propaganda
intended to calm the masses and lull the citizens into a false since of security.
It appears to me that being lied to by government NRC officials is a potentially
dangerous practice, not to mention an unethical one. My point is that if "we the public" are told that we are safe,
and later find the NRC recants their statements about being safe, then that's a clue that the NRC isn't taking any further
or meaningful action in the matter. If they said we are safe, then why would they do anything constructive or proactive
in the reportedly safe area of concern?
If the NRC and their spokesperson won't tell us, the public, the truth then there
are consequences for them to face. For starters, we won't believe them; they lose credibility. Secondly we "the people" may
just decide that they are not trustworthy and/or competent enough for us to allow them the privilege of judging and serving
as jury in matters of nuclear power plant licensing, operation and security. Their reign over matters involving
nuclear medicine may need to come to an end. We can and should either replace them, or, shut them down. This outcome should
be the logical and ultimate consequence.
During my college days, I came across an interesting story. Our main adversary
and enemy of the United States at the time, Russia, had for its official state newspaper a publication named Pravda.
It was their government's official forum for dispensing propaganda to the peasants of that mighty Communist nation. It was
used to disseminate lies and false information to the people when it served the governments interests. One story that I remember
told of an international competition. With great pride the Russian overlords told the masses of good news
to instill national pride and stir the peasants into a frenzy of the celebration of victory over the inferior Americans. In
the story of the international competition, Pravda proclaimed that The USSR placed second and the USA came in next to last
place. The facts in this international competition were that there were only to entries, the USA and Russia. The
USA won first place, putting the USSR in second place. Since Russia placed last, the USA placed next to last.
Pravda translated from Russian to English means "Truth".
I'm confident that Commissioner Edward McGaffigan Jr., having spent several years
in Russia knows of Pravda and the truth.
Ron Bath asks that the NRC propaganda machine and Breck Henderson, NRC Senior
Public Affairs Officer, region 4 think very hard about consequences and in the future cross verify their facts before
they tell us the "Truth".
The NRC has lied to Ron Bath and lied to Congressmen, in my opinion and belief,
about details in the case of Ron Bath VS the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Please join me, Ron Bath, in regonizing a disturbing pattern of being mislead
and lied to by a government regulatory agency, the NRC.
NRC commissioner and Chairman Nils J. Diaz and his colleagues Commissioner Edward
McGaffigan Jr. and Commissioner Jeffery S. Merrifield have turned Ron Bath's appeal for justice and Tort Claim Compensation
down.
Could they be wrong about their decision on the Ron Bath case? They were wrong
in post 911 public statements, and are presently making public statements accusing their boss, President George W. Bush, of
being wrong about important issues. Please join me, Ron Bath, and share my opinion and belief that the US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and their commissioners are at least experts at one thing and that is at being wrong.
Have a truthful day,
Ron Bath
