Re: Re :LNT and educating the public

["Richard L. Hess" <lists@richardhess.com>]

Ruth (as usual) hit some interesting nails on the head--at least in my

experience.


She is correct that, at least for me, knowing the facts doesn't change my

anti-war stance, though it may change my stance on nuclear power...could

it be that I'm being more legitimately "green" by coming around

to the pro nuclear power side?


The DU issue is a hot one--I've heard it stated that some of the

battlefields in the former Yugoslavia will be unusable for thousands of

years because of the DU munitions that were used there.


I won't turn and run if anyone wants to tell me more. I'm sorry I don't

have an answer to Ruth's question. A suggestion might be calling the

person and wanting to learn more about what they know and perhaps sharing

what I know and offering to take them out to dinner or something like

that. Restaurants are a good place for these discussions. Start during

the appetizer.


Cheers,


Richard


At 12:22 PM 10/31/2002 -0500, RuthWeiner@AOL.COM wrote:

> Maybe
>
> the psychologically informed on RADSAFE can help with the
>
> following:
>
>
> I was on a panel at a local school early this week.  One of the
>
> women on the panel, a self-identified "peace activist" whom I
>
> had met on other occasions,  made some statements about depleted
>
> uranium that were simply wrong (e.g., that it was very
>
> radioactive).  The panel was not the appropriate venue to correct
>
> her or argue, so afterwards I said to her that I thought she had got some
>
> misinformation about DU.  She cut me off virtually in mid-sentence
>
> and almost ran out the door.  She clearly didn't want to discuss the
>
> issue at all.
>
>
> The complete disinclination to discuss the issue got me to thinking
>
> (incidentally, we had had a brief discussion before I raised the DU
>
> question, during which she said I seemed to be an OK person even though I
>
> was "on the wrong side").  People of this person's
>
> persuasion probably don't want to know actual facts, because they are
>
> convinced that any argument that supports their purpose is valid, whether
>
> there is truth in the argument or not.    A peace activist
>
> like this person is opposed to war, and is so convinced of the spiritual
>
> rightness of her convictions that she is simply uninterested in ANYTHING
>
> that contradicts what she says.  She was apparently so afraid that
>
> what I had to say could be turned into some sort of pro-war argument -- a
>
> ludicrous idea under the circumstances -- that she didn't even want to
>
> hear what I was going to say.
>
>
> It occurs to me that for many, being anti-nuke has taken on the overtones
>
> of a faith or religion.  Their arguments are sound because they
>
> support their faith, and they have faith in the rightness of their
>
> convictions.  It is pointless to question the existence of
>
> miraculous visions with someone who believes in them.
>
>
> My question to the psychologically-minded is: how can people for whom
>
> being anti-nuke is a virtual faith be encouraged to become adequately
>
> informed?  I do not believe this is a question of speaking "lay
>
> language."   My peace activist lady doesn't want to know,
>
> because she is afraid that the truth about DU will somehow cast a shadow
>
> on her convictions about peace (which of course it won't).  In my
>
> opinion, the approach is that being pro-or anti-nuke is not appropriately
>
> a religious or spiritual faith, there is no inherent
>
> "rightness" or "wrongness" about nuclear power or
>
> food irradiation, etc.  
>
>
> I would be interested in others' opinions.
>
>
> Ruth
>
>
> Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
>
> ruthweiner@aol.com

Richard L. Hess                              richard@richardhess.com
Glendale, CA USA                           http://www.richardhess.com/
Web page: folk and church music, photography, and
                 broadcast engineering