Re: Meeting public demand

["Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@prodigy.net>]

    I agree that although  democracy may be the best form of government, it

has certain faults. For example, should a benevolent democratic government

give the public what it wants, or what is best for them? It takes a

particularly courageous politician or bureaucrat to do the latter knowing

that would be unpopular.

    In the BRC case, my complaint with the NRC is simply that they were

deceitful (implicitly perhaps, but nevertheless deceitful). By sponsoring

very expensive scientific research programs ostensibly to support their

regulatory efforts, they convey the erroneous impression to the public that

their regulations are scientifically based. If, in fact, their regulations

are simply intended to reflect the public will , that should be explicitly

stated, and any research should be directed toward determining the nature of

regulations that would be popular with the most people. Such a direct

approach would be a lot more efficient and cheaper. All I am asking for is

some honesty and integrity. Is that too much?

    Could it also be that fear of incurring public disfavor is what

motivates ICRP & NCRP to  perpetuate LNT, ALARA, and similar policies?

Although it is unlikely they would be voted out of office, their sources of

funding might certainly be endangered were they to change their course of

action.



----- Original Message -----

From: Michael Stabin <michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu>

To: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>

Cc: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 2:22 PM

Subject: Re: Meeting public demand





> Jerry Cohen writes -

>

> > My point is that

> > NRC could have  saved much time, effort, and most of all, money if they

> had

> > just short-circuited the process by determining the public/political

> climate

> > in the first place and ignored the science which was apparently of

little

> > importance in this case. I am sure there are several other examples of

> this

> > sort of problem . Why bother with the science if it can have no impact

in

> a

> > system pervaded by spin, politics, and PR.



Michael Stabin writes--



> This is indeed a bad situation. It is the supposed antidote to the other

> extreme of the government ramming policies down the public's throat,

because

> "they know what's good for you". The antidote, however, has worked out to

> be, in my opinion, almost as bad as the poison, and at times I refer to

this

> in fairly strong terms as a "failure of democracy". People in a democracy

> don't want the government acting without the consent of the governed, and

I

> am one of them. But with our mass media driven culture, those with the

best

> skill in manipulating opinion, **often intentionally spreading

> misinformation in direct contradiction to known scientific facts** have

> successfully managed to control the debate on many scientific issues, of

> which radiation protection is just one. By appealing to emotion and

> repeating often absurd claims in drumbeat fashion, the public begins to

> speak the mantras of those with the best PR engines, and fact and logic

are

> left as roadkill.

>

> I agree that merely complaining about it on Radsafe is not the answer.

Ruth

> Sponsler's (and others') encouragement to be involved in schools is part

of

> the solution. Barbara Hamrick's call for help in influencing legislation

is

> another good example of how to actively participate in the remedy. Public

> information activities in general are another. I'm quite pleased at the

> astounding success of the HPS' Ask the Expert web site feature. Gen

Roessler

> is doing a marvelous job, and has assembled an Associate Editor team to

> handle the very high volume of requests that are coming in there. I have

> been able to interact with a number of people directly, sometimes

> repeatedly, and try to calm some of their irrational fears, driven by

> irresponsible antinuke groups and the media, about radiation doses from

> simple medical procedures and the like.

>

> This is one of my drumbeats - if you understand radiation, you have a

> professional responsibility to be part of the voice in whatever

communities

> you are part of to help bring a rational perspective to these public

policy

> debates in our society. You can't do it all yourself, and it can't be done

> in a day. But if we each do our part, write our letters, know our facts,

> show respect to our opponents, and hold our ground, it can be done.

>

> "First they ignore you; Then they laugh at you; Then they fight you; Then

> you win."

>

> Mike

>

> Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP

> Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences

> Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences

> Vanderbilt University

> 1161 21st Avenue South

> Nashville, TN 37232-2675

> Phone (615) 343-0068

> Fax   (615) 322-3764

> e-mail  michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu

>

>

>