Re: Mislabeling

[Neon John <johngd@bellsouth.net>]

Jim Hardeman wrote:
> 
> Colleages -
> 
> I would think also that if NIRS placarded the vehicle, that they also would be in possession of proper shipping documents? <nod nod wink wink> I'm sure that driving a placarded vehicle with improper DOT shipping papers, or without a Hazmat endorsement on a CDL would be a violation of SOMETHING, wouldn't it?
> 
> Jim Hardeman
> Jim_Hardeman@mail.dnr.state.ga.us
> 
>

(Not picking on you, Jim, just found it a convenient message to
reply to.)

This thread is the perfect example of why we always lose.  For
several days now, people have been scouring 10CFR and state regs
trying to find something with which to "get" these protesters.  Very
Himmleresque.  Kinda like the Stazi deploying neighbor against
neighbor as snitches. Completely lost in the process is that what
they are doing is absolutely protected political speech, every bit
as protected as burning a flag.  And when the public, perhaps via
the reporters who lurk on this list, find out about it, we look like
the deceitful weasels some of us are.  So sad that so much energy is
wasted.  If "we" had even a tenth of a percent as much imagination
as the other side does, this energy could be used to wage an
effective counteroffensive.  

Just suppose some innovative nukes put together a giant "lie
detector" on wheels to follow this "cask" on its trek.  Suppose this
thing had a huge "meter" on the side, oh, say 8 feet tall, that went
further upscale the closer it got to the "cask".  And suppose it was
rigged up to chatter like a geiger counter but instead of "click",
it said "liars".  And suppose that the rate increased along with the
"meter".  And suppose that the rest of this vehicle, say a flatbed
truck, had graphics telling the public in layman's terms WHY the lie
detector was going off.  What effect do you think that would have. 
It would attract the media like flies on sh..  And suppose, just to
reach way out on a limb, that the driver and right seat man were
PR-trained PR scientists or engineers who could explain to the
reporters in layman's terms what the real issues are and where the
lies are.  Which tactic do you think would be more effective in
telling our side?

There is an example to follow.  The National Rifle Association,
another group in which I'm actively involved, used to be a stodgy
old group of mainly shooters and hunters who dealt with such (to the
public) boring things as marksmanship, police training, juvenile gun
safety, gunsmithing and the like.  After we got blind-sided by the
Gun Control Act of '68, we metamorphed ourselves into a political
gun rights organization.  Of course, we still do all the other stuff
too, but the political action is what the public sees.  And despite
being overwhelmed by an axis of government, media and private big
money, we've held our own fairly well.  Sure, we've lost some
battles but I'd hate to think what shape the 2nd would be in had NRA
not been there.  

If we hope to defeat the nuclear luddites, our organizations MUST
take a page from NRA's playbook.  It's great to publish scholarly
journals and administer certification programs and formulate
standards and the like but none of this matters much if our
professions go away.  We need someone equivalent to NRA's Charleston
Heston or Rock & Roller Sammy Hagar to carry our message.  And we
need to act on a grassroots level.  The opposition does it so why
not us?

If you're gunphobic and don't like the NRA example, consider what
the Clintonistas did so devastatingly effectively against Bush and
Dole.  They had their media strike team who were on standby with PR
flacks at any time of the day to instantly counter any charge made
against them by the Republicans.  They did not wait around for a day
or more to formulate a formal response.  They had a James Carvelle
or other similarly obnoxious mouth in front of the media within
minutes of the Republican charge countering the charge, usually with
spin, distortions or outright lies.  It worked brutally well.  

The GOP reminds me of us nukes in a way.  They got their heads
handed to them by Clinton during the first campaign.  So what did
they learn from it?  Absolutely nothing.  The rolled out Dole.  He
might have made a good candidate 30 years ago but geeze, you could
almost see the neurons firing, he was so slow to respond.  Even so,
Clinton was so bad that they had a chance had they learned even one
lesson from the previous election and adopted the guerilla tactics. 
We're the same way.  After we get an infrequent opportunity to
present to the media, we roll out someone who sounds like he's
presenting his oral dissertation.  Half a dozen acronyms like LNT
and REMs and LD50 and so on, the audience is in snooze land.  

Instead of attempting to be painfully, excruciatingly, precisely
exact with our answers, we need to just flat say "Low level
radiation is harmless.  Period.  Low level radioactive material is
harmless.  Period.  Nuclear plants are safe.  Period."  Yes, we can
quibble with ourselves about whether it is harmless or almost
harmless but as far as the public is concerned, we MUST "stay on
message".  Every two bit politician knows that instinctively.  Why
don't we?

While I'm at it, it's time we start to recognize the enemy for what
he is.  We try to fight this fight as a debate between worthy
opponents who happen to have different viewpoints.  That is entirely
wrong.  Environmentalism is a modern day paganesque religion.  Think
for a moment about the characteristics of a religion.  Belief in
something that can be neither proven or sensed.  Headed by
charismatic leaders.  The use of outwardly meaningless ceremonies
(scraping up slightly "contaminated" soil for reburial, for
example).  The use of catch-phrases and chants.  (example: Save the
___.)  Characterization of the opposition as inspired by evil.  The
use of bibles, liturgical documents, hymnals, etc)  Irrational
emotional attachment to the cause or the leader. (I can still see
the screaming, crying protesters being removed from the gate at TMI
so we could go home.)

Once we realize that we are fighting a theological war, our tactics
can be adjusted to fit.  Just as no one has ever used scientifically
rational logic to dissuade a Christian from believing in the virgin
birth of Christ, so too will we never change a true believer with
mere science.  As long as we think we can, we continue to lose.

John

-- 
John De Armond
johngdSPAMNOT@bellsouth.net
http://personal.bellsouth.net/~johngd/
Neon John's Custom Neon
Cleveland, TN
"Bendin' Glass 'n Passin' Gas"
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html