Re: Mentoring

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Ted,

Well you have to do it the way you see fit :-)

It sounds like what I've seen in other forums that fail to communicate because 
we make it more complicated than it needs to be.  

> >>I guess my sense is that, if the subject of radiation/safety can't capture
> >>interest WITHOUT statistics/probability, adding s/p (ugh)  won't get any 
> >>MORE potential interest   :-) 
> 
> Thanks for the comments Jim.  But my concern about s/p is that I don't see 
> any way to do just a project without addressing the "danger" of radiation.  

The "danger" can be addressed almost totally without  statistics/probability.
We know what the consequences of radiation injury are, at about what levels of 
dose. We confuse the issue entirely by trying to get "sophisticated" about our 
esoteric arguments about risks below a few rad. Its unnecessary to address by
s/p IF you want primarily to explain and inspire kids about radiation and
radiation safety. 

> To them it is a threshold thing or no threshold.  If their is any 
> probability of causing cancer at all - then it does always!  

I don't think they're stupid. They understand the idea that driving at 100 mph 
is more dangerous (higher risk) than driving at 60 mph, though you don't
ALWAYS die when you drive >100 mph.  You're just going to set up those
communication barriers again (still).  Don't you just want to find a way to
give them some inspiration about the field, or try to get them into the
rationalizations why we fear radiation at any level? 

>Also they need 
> to FEEL s/p to understand things like Cohen's relative risks - the 
> difference between 1:1000 and 1:1000000!  Just what "likely" means.

I was talking about Cohen's radon data. :-)  I don't "understand" 1:1000 vs
1:1000000 either. Is that the risk at 50 mph vs. 150 mph ?  :-) 

> Most lay adults do not understand this which is one of the reasons 
> politicians can play to the public fears and things get so carried away.
> 
> I'd want them to come away with the tools to be able to rationally evaluate 
> the issues.
> 
> Maybe I wnt too much?

Well I always think that its NOT a matter wanting "too much", as much as
wanting the wrong terms. I have the sense that much of the materials I see
don't just "want" to achieve understanding, we want people/students to
"understand" on our terms, on the framework of science, rather than to try to
find ways of providing the "ultimate" info in terms that can be "known" in
forms that can be understood outside narrow "science" perspectives, (even to
seeing "scientists" object to providing good, understandable, info if its not
provided in the limited, "objective", narrow terms of "science").  

[ While not directly on point, I would observe the "picture" in Marie Curie's
biography at the opening of Ch 13 "Four Years in a Shed" (p.165), thanks to
the recollection instigated by Paul Frame, that says, that "a man chosen at
random from a crowd to read an account of the discovery of radium, would not
have doubted for one moment that radium existed: being whose critical sense
has not been sharpened and simultaneously deformed by specialized culture keep 
their imaginations fresh...ready to accept an unexpected fact... ...The
physicist...received the news in a different fashion...kept on the reserve..." 
and... "the chemist...only believes when he seen, touched, weighted and
examined, bottled it, and determined its atomic weight." etc  I have concluded 
that to explain radiation and radioactivity to the public, we are often our
own worst enemies, esp. in denying the ability to explain reality and concepts 
in terms other than consistent with rigorous "scientific" principles (which
are then BOTH not understood, and BORING!   :-) ] 

It's obviously not easy, and most such efforts I've seen have produced things
so over-simplified as to be insulting and unconvincing.  I'm sure there are
good examples that I have not seen, and would recommend and request any
pointers by the group to any such sources. 

Good luck with your endeavors. And I'm still interested in what you come up
with! (Though obviously disappointed if its "more of the same"  :-) 

[It's really something I'd like to have time to work on; along with the
education supplemental curriculum matrix that we discussed a few months ago.] 

Regards, Jim

PS: I'm more disappointed that we don't have an ascii plot code :-)