Re: Request for suggestion

[Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@delphi.com>]

Bernard L Cohen wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Mike Fuller wrote:
> 
> > Anything that reduces the greenhouse effect is good for the environment.
> >
> > Nuclear power reduces the greenhouse effect.
> > Therefore Nuclear power is good for the environment.
> 
>         --Of course I use this and dozens of other such arguments. But I
> am convinced that the key issue is that people think that nuclear power is
> unacceptable because it kills people. I counter this by pointing out that
> coal burning, the chief competion which is now widely accepted, is killing
> at least a thousand times as many people. But I am told that this argument
> is unacceptable, so I need a substitute.

Bernie, This isn't unacceptable, but it's needed as a broad-based "campaign." 
Have you tried to work thru senior industry and public policy people/orgs?  

You can also say: "For those who think this is unacceptable, what's your
alternative."  

Obviously, "next generation" answers still require, "How do you propose to
reach the next gen? We must start now!"

In that context, there are substantive curriculum materials needed; and
critical comments on existing materials.  Web site materials are getting more
important.  You can perhaps work thru NSTA! (Are you a member?)  They
accept/promote a lot of ed materials - to a lot of teachers - especially free
:-)  Or like "Teaching Physics"(?) magazine.  

(You can't work thru political orgs like ANS or HPS.  What about APS, AIP,
ACS, etc.  They may be more scientific, and greater commitment, to support
producing credible educational materials.)

Of course, as before, "next gen" isn't the answer. It's more like abrogation
of responsibility. :-)

Regards, Jim
muckerheide@mediaone.net
========================
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html