Re[2]: Letters to the Editor -Reply

["K. K. S. Pillay" <s_pillay@lanl.gov>]

Ruth:

Both you and Dean are right.  I have published letters in NY Times on Food
Irradiation.  Because of the large number of letters they receive, they
edit the letters and do not consult the author on the final version.
However, at least in my experience, they conveyed the gist of the
communication, not the details of my argument.

Local papers, however do publish all that you write and are generally
courteous enough to allow you to examine the final version.

I do agree with your comment about "public won't understand."


Sam
========



>     I respectfully disagree.  I have had a number of letters published in
>     newspapers in various cities (Denver, Seattle, Albuquerque, etc.) and
>     length and detail have not been a problem.  Several long pieces of
>     mine were printed as op-ed pieces, and the Seattle Times, at least,
>     allowed me to edit them to fit the space.  I never made it to a major
>     newspaper like the Wash. Post or the NY Times.
>
>     I think it has to do with the policies of the particular newspaper.
>     Moreover, the smaller the community, the more likely one is to get
>     stuff printed.  They DO like controversy!
>
>     I have been teaching at the undergraduate and graduate level since
>     1963, including many "lay" workshops, and I think the notion that "the
>     public won't understand scientific discussions" is poppycock.  If you
>     know what you are talking about and avoid words of art (or explain
>     them), the public that cares will understand you.  This business of
>     scientists talking down is often just another smokescreen.
>
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator
>_________________________________
>Subject: Re: Letters to the Editor -Reply
>Author:  HDC@nrc.gov at hubsmtp
>Date:    12/17/97 8:22 AM
>
>
>Addressing each issue may not get your point in print due to length.  Editors
>want
>short stuff (most of the time).  I agree with someone earlier that said
>pick out
>one or
>two points that can be refuted and show that the writer is not a creditable
>source of
>information.  Don't ramble about technical stuff.  We are trying to
>communicate
>with
>the public and they have very little time to consult a dictionary.
>
>H.  Dean Chaney, CHP -  USNRC, Region IV/WCFO
>hdc@nrc.gov
>ddchaney@castles.com
>
>The views put forth above are my own and do not necessarily
>reflect the beliefs or policies of the USNRC or any other
>governmental entity or some of my family.