Re: Meeting public demand

[Kai Kaletsch <info@eic.nu>]

Why is it that on interest rate policy Congress (public) seeks input from

bankers, but on energy policy or stem cell research Congress seeks advice

from priests, actors and super models?



The first issue is seen as a technical issue, while the others are seen as

value issues. In a democracy, the public has the right to defer technical

issues to technical experts. (When was the last time someone called for a

plebiscite on interest rates?). Energy policy should be a technical issue.

Most of us share the same values. (Not all of us - some people think nuclear

is evil and that's all.) We want energy at a reasonable price with minimal

environmental impact (

http://www.dilbertzone.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20020220.html ).



It is important to point out factual errors (e.g. glowing deer, 8000

radiation dead at Chernobyl) and ask further questions when the information

is incomplete (21 pCi per gram or 21 pCi per deer?). This will not turn the

public into PhDs, but will make the public aware that there are people who

have studied this kind of stuff.



Kai



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

Subject: Re: Meeting public demand





> 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