Re: International Conference on Communications - IAEA

[GELSG@aol.com]

Ruth et al:

I think it is very important, when we are discussing communications, to be 
clear with whom the "communication" is occuring.  As a very insightful 
RADSAFER pointed out a while ago, no positive outcome is likely when you are 
discussing science and the other person is defending his/her religion.  The 
word "communication" probably should not be used to describe that type of 
interchange.  To a lesser degree, we can also see that in interactions with 
the press and even with "scientists" who may have a social or legislative 
agenda.  There will certainly be different communication techniques that will 
be more appropriate  in some of these situations and not in others.  If I 
make a statement about communications (while thinking of how to explain to my 
nephew that a handful of dirt is radioactive) that is a whole lot different 
than discussing the communications needed to explain (say, to a 
representative of the Tooth Fairy project) why I don't think that natural 
radioactivity is responsible for the deaths of 1.3 billion people.

For open and honest communication between the health physicist and the 
non-technical public, I believe that we do not do a very good job of 
communicating in general.  I think Ray Johnson is right on the mark with his 
series of columns in the HPS Newsletter a few years ago.  If we wish to 
effectively communicate with these non-technical people, we must sometimes 
just listen to them, and then respond in terms of "feelings" rather than 
facts and figures.  It is very difficult for a "scientific" personality type 
to do, but I have found it to be very effective.  Obviously when the other 
party has a hidden agenda - and we have all encountered that type of person 
before - none of these techniques will work, and as I said, I'm not even sure 
that the word "communication" should be used to describe that type of 
interaction.

So, I don't think that any of you are necessarily wrong in what you have said 
about communications so far, but I think that in some cases we are talking 
about different things.  This is an interesting thread.  I hope we can keep 
separate the various types of "communication" as we discuss them.

Gerald L. Gels
gelsg@aol.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
.....But by now I don't think people ignore the need to
communicate, few people try deliberately to be obscure, and finally, the
notion that "scientists don't know how to talk to ordinary people" is a
generalization that is mostly fiction (and insulting).

"... people are entitled to their opinions..." : I am certainly entitled to
the opinion that the earth is flat, but that doesn't make  the earth flat.
And by now there is plenty of evidence that such an opinion is simply wrong.
We do not, for example, teach creationism in public school, though many are
of the opinion that it accurately describes the way homo sapiens evolved.
What many of us are asking, in the LNT debate, is that it be acknowledged
that the accumulated evidence suggests a threshold of adverse effect  and
does not appear to support the LNT hypothesis.

I recognize that it is heresy currently (or at least politically incorrect)
to suggest that a conference on communication would serve no useful purpose
unless it can be shown that past conferences have had a tangible result.

Ruth Weiner
ruth_weiner@msn.com
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html