Re: Frontline Comment

["Robert M. Loesch" <loesch@spok.eh.doe.gov>]

At 09:28 AM 4/24/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>I think most 'scientists' object to this PR approach, i.e., putting a
>different slant on the same set of facts, but that is the reality we live
>in.  While educating the public is a nice objective the reality is
>probably more that we have to find the positive aspect they will respond
>to and emphasize that.  [Having said that, i.e., acknowledged it
>intellectually, I still find myself reacting like Sandy - why that  crazy
>reaction!]
>
>-- 
>the above are the personal musing of the author,
>and do not represent any past, current, or future
>position of NIST, the U.S. Government, or anyone else
>who might think that they are in a position of authority.
>NBSR Health Physics
>NIST
>Gaithersburg, MD 20899
>301 975-5810
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>Lester.Slaback@nist.gov
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
With the Hill's reduction in overall gov't funding, the reduction
in gov't R&D funding and the reduction in DOE funding of national
labs, maybe there will be more of an incentive for scientists to 
present their facts in such a manner that is, while still technically
factual, more acceptable to the public.  Businesses have for years
seen the power of "good" public relations. I believe that the success
of the nuclear industry in France is not, as Ralph Nader put it, due
to ignorance, but to their understanding and support for their
scientific community.

We are in a terrible "Catch 22" situation in this country - the 
misrepresentation of facts and lack of knowledge of radiation by
the news media, anti-nuclear groups and the public drives 
congressional actions which in turn mandates more stringent
regulations and controls with in turn reinforces the public's fears -
the gov't won't require more controls if it weren't really a hazard.
To break this cycle, we need at least one generation that is taught
the basic science and presented facts in a well balance perspective. 
They will come to logical conclusions about the real hazards of
radiation, supported by facts, and their representatives in gov't
will respond accordingly.


========================================================================
      _/_/        _/_/      _/_/_/_/   Robert M. Loesch
     _/  _/    _/   _/     _/         US Department of Energy
    _/   _/  _/      _/   _/         EH-52, GTN, 270CC
   _/	  _/ _/       _/  _/_/_/_/   19901 Germantown Road	
  _/    _/  _/      _/  _/         Germantown, MD  20874-1290
 _/    _/    _/   _/   _/         Tel: 301 903-4443;  Fax: -7773
_/_/_/       _/_/     _/_/_/_/   loesch@spok.eh.doe.gov
========================================================================
 "The definition of a public health disaster is a catastrophe so large
     that an epidemiologic study can detect it."    David Ozonoff