Re: Why nuclear is a "no-win" in the USA -Reply

[Fox@acsh.org (Michael Fox)]

radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu,Internet writes:
Amoling wirtes:
>I don't profess to know how to educate the public....like with any 
>other issue, the public only seems to get excited when something is 
>going wrong.  

Response:  The business of  risk communications has made major advances in
recent years.  It was my experience that they will help organize all of these
thoughts and concepts on RADSAFE very nicely.  I highly recommend both Vince
Covello and Peter Sandman.  

Scientists really are different in how we've been trained, in our decision
making processes, how we evaluate and cope with risk.  In conducting our
scientific endeavors, sensitivity training and its various forms are secondary,
the data and the calculations will settle the debates.  That's they way it
should be, in the science and engineering classrooms and at work.

But with the media, the critics, and the public, and the rest of the 95% of the
public who are scientifically uninformed, it isn't that way.  Worse, these
folks vote.  I am oversimplifying a bit, scientists do have feelings,
interpersonal skills are better than none, etc.  

Covello has made evaluations of hundreds of communicators (he's even trained 
antinukes, by the way).  Guess what the single most important attribute of an
effective risk communicator is?  Its EMPATHY.  COMPETENCE with subject matter
ranks way down the list of attributes with the audience.  (Which may explain
years ago why Ralph Nader was found in a poll to be the public's favorite
expert on nuclear issues).  One need empathy to develop trust.  One needs to
hear and respond empathetically to the public's concerns first.  

Only in this way can one develop trust.  Trust needs to be established before
you can begin to tell them what's on your mind.  (If you doubt this, try
reading NCRP-43 for example, to a hostile audience. (as I recall it is, a
bland, non-confrontational  summary of natural radiation)).  They won't want to
hear it.  They want their concerns heard first.

These were very helpful and they may be to you.  Further the critics know well
these dynamics.  These dynamics are often discussed in propaganda courses in
schools of journalism.  It is one of the critics' goals to discredit you and
create mistrust.  This is pure Machiavelli, but is works, as has been discussed
recently on RADSAFE.  Both Covello and Sandman are usually hired to train
managers and those in the PR departments.  However, the HPS and ANS types can
benefit tremendously.
MFox

Mike Fox  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
              The American Council on Science and Health
          1995 Broadway, 2nd Floor   New York, NY 10023-5860
                 Tel: 212/362-7044   Fax: 212/362-4919
                      URL: http://www.acsh.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------