Re: The Friendly Atom

[John Pickering <johnjp@email.sjsu.edu>]

You may try reviewing the early articles (the positive outlooks as well as
the negative) and update the information.  As an example, you could show the
projected use of radiation 40 years ago and how it is applied today.  Did we
achieve what we had hoped.

johnjp@email.sjsu.edu


At 12:39 PM 4/14/98 -0500, you wrote:
>I was recently reading an article titled "Man's New Servant, the Friendly
>Atom" from a 1954 National Geographic (I wasn't alive then, my wife bought
>me the new 30 CD ROM set of the magazine from 1888 through 1997).  As you
>can guess, the article was pretty upbeat, mentioning things like screwfly
>sterilization, thickness gauges, atomic energy, medical research, medical
>procedures, and so forth.  
>
>What struck me most upon finishing the article is that, in over 40 years,
>the arguments and examples we give the public have hardly changed while
>those of our opponents have.  Could this help to explain the feeling that
>we're on the losing end of the PR wars?  Can anyone suggest ways we might
>try to adapt our message in the same way the antis have?  Or should we be
>trying to come up with a new message?  At this point I have no answers,
>only an observation and a lot of questions.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Andy
>
>The opinions expressed above are well-reasoned and insightful.  Needless to
>say, they are not those of my employer. (with apologies to Michael Feldman)		
>
>Andrew Karam, MS, CHP					(614) 292-1284 (phone)
>The Ohio State University 					(614) 292-7002 (fax)
>Office of Radiation Safety					"The mind is not a vessel to
>1314 Kinnear Road						be filled but a fire to be
>Columbus, OH  43212						lighted." (Plutarch)	   
>(karam.1@osu.edu) 			    
>
>