Re: Sec. Ridge accurately addresses the impact of a "dirty bomb"

[BLHamrick@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 2/17/2003 7:40:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, tdc@XRAYTED.COM writes:


> Agreed - your statement is technically correct - BUT - when people hear
>
> that they will just tune out and say - "see even he doesn't know".
>
>
> The original statement is indeed imprecise - but it is what the public
>
> listens to.  This is one reason the anti's do so well - to them the end
>
> justifies the means and if ambiguity and just flat out lying are what it
>
> takes to make a simple, short statement using small words - that is
>
> exactly what they will do.



I agree.  One of the biggest problems I've witnessed in public meetings is that the semi-professional citizen-activists have no qualms about exagerrating and distorting information to deliver what amounts to a political message.  When agencies try to respond, they respond with technically correct, factual information, but it is so tedious the audience tunes out - they are generally much more fascinated by the snake-oil salesman.  There must be a way to tackle this problem without comprimising the integrity of the agencies and the scientists that represent them.


Barbara