Re:: linear hypothesis

["Michael P. Grissom" <mikeg@SLAC.Stanford.EDU>]

Well, I seem to recall two organizations that had expended 
a great deal of effort on public information campaigns!

First, the Atomic Energy Commission's (AEC's) "Atoms for 
Peace" program.  There were many pamphlets, films, 
educational programs, and demonstration kits produced for 
use at home, in the classroom, and in libraries.  I recall
having some of them to consider in between reading the
"Weekly Reader"!  Curiously, many are still applicable 
(making some allowance for their age) despite their low 
regard by Congressional staffers, the NRDC, etc.

Second, and more recently, was the Atomic Industrial Forum 
(AIF), which was of course much more intimately tied to the 
Nuclear Power industry.  Their products, also many 
educational documents and demonstration tools, have also been 
questioned using the "running dogs of the industry" posture 
by advocacy groups of various sorts.  Of course, any industry
group would be expected to exert a significant effort to 
place a "positive-spin" on their products/technology with
relation to their customers.

Whether right or wrong, neither of those institutions' efforts
has any significant credibility today amongst the majority of
the public.  A complete loss of oil, natural gas, wood product 
fuels, peat and coal reserves world wide, however, would 
substantially improve the willingness of the public (and 
political leaders) to accept the nuclear power industries 
story!  [I may be wrong, but I have noticed somewhat less
negativism lately regarding this issue--but not enough to
prevent cutting of the Advanced Reactor Program by the
budgeteers!]

In the mean time, many former nuclear engineers are now making
a living as health physicists!

Again, just an opinion...

At 09:53 AM 10/17/95 -0500, you wrote:
>      Radiological Engineering (bst@inel.gov)
>      6-1279  MS 4138  FAX 6-8959  Pager 5841
>To carry it a little further, it seems that there is little 
>or no PR for the advantages of nuclear power.  Those who are 
>knowledgable are essentially quiet and seemed gagged in their 
>communication to the public of this or any other theory while 
>the anti-nuke faction rant and rave and are BELIEVED by the 
>public.  Where is the "Rush Limbaugh" for nuclear energy?
>Personally, I don't think the frightened public would believe 
>any non-conservative theory without first being positively 
>[conditioned by a?] nuclear PR program.
-----------------------
Michael P. Grissom
mikeg@slac.stanford.edu
Phone:  (415) 926-2346
Fax:    (415) 926-3030