Fellows comments from the third lecture series

Robert Bazell – Chief science correspondent for NBC
The Progress Energy Series: NBC at USF

As part of Progress Energy’s series on the environment, NBC reporter Robert Bazell spoke to an audience gathered at the Mahaffey Theater on Tuesday evening, February 5. Since the inception of his career with NBC in 1976, Mr. Bazell has become noted for his award-winning reporting of science and health issues presented regularly on NBC Nightly News, The Today Show, and Dateline NBC. He has as his personal mission undertaken health/science explorations, as exemplified by his foresight in tracking AIDS early on, in the face of a lackadaisical attitude of much of the medical, scientific, and political communities.
Bazell’s appearance was in correlation with a lecture conference at Poynter Institute, and that may explain why his remarks and examples applied more directly to the technique of science reporting than to environmental issues.
What makes for a successful TV science story? According to Bazell, the media should not attempt to “teach” science. A news feature is a promotion, just as is—we may infer—any entertainment feature. Understanding how emotions can be engaged, and applying this understanding is important to the overall effect. The “characters” one creates in this fashion make the report interesting (or not). As regards scientific theory, Bazell says [although some scientists may demur] there is no absolute truth: it is the responsibility of the citizen to inform himself/herself on issues. It is the journalist’s responsibility, in the main, to present two sides of an issue. That is not to say that one side may not be weighted: Bazell cites the strategy of the tobacco industry, whose standard sidestep against claims was that “it wasn’t proven.” It is an old strategy, he says, to create doubters.           
During the question and answer session, Bazell issued a startling comment, saying that environmental reporting is being overdone. “The pandemic threat (bird flu) is not less,” he pointed out, but it is only that it has lost shock value and, thus, news reporting value. 
Bazell briefly commented on an audience member’s question on global warming. Prompt to disclaim himself as a scientist [he did, in fact, inadvertently relocate the place and date of the initial Protocol against global warming], Bazell recited the consensus of most scientists: ice core samples and tree rings give evidence that the earth is hotter than it has been for 400 years, and—for the first time—humankind is causing this change.
One may remark that the sluggish response to this news item—no longer hot off the presses—is a verification of Bazell’s contention that environmental reporting, once having delivered its content, loses shock value within the general, non-activist public, its ‘‘raised consciousness” resettling like a leaf of old newspaper sent temporarily aloft by a passing [ill] wind. Plenty of well-intentioned carbon-producing folks have Al Gore’s book—displayed on their coffee tables. Mr. Bazell’s statement, uttered in indictment of the tobacco industry, applies here on a more urgent note: “It takes a courageous journalist, but, more so, courageous leaders to do something about it." - Margaret Brown

Robert Bazell chose an interesting format for his speech where he showed former clips of himself and afterwards explained the difficulties and aims of the piece. He was adamant about the fact that he is a journalist, not a scientist, and that his job consists of translating jargon into common English so that the general public can understand.
For example, when he did the segment about the differences between men and women’s brains, he had to find a couple with who most people could relate. The story had to unravel according to their perspective so that the general public could feel a connection to the topic. During his autism piece, he explained how he had to gain the trust of the scientists involved so that they allow him to show footage of their test subjects. For the sleep segment, he stressed how every word was very carefully chosen as he is only allowed about 450 total in the span of two minutes.
He concluded his speech by showing a progression of his reporting on global warming and illustrating how the discovery of new evidence had changed the way the topic was discussed. -- Biliana Ivanova

            
The seminar on February 5 was about “Science and the Media” by Chief Science Correspondent Robert Bazell. He has worked in the media at issues of science on NBC mostly, but worked also at the Today show. Mr. Bazell has worked in the media department for 35 years to report on science related issues especially medical sciences. “The job of the schools is to teach science to kids,” he says, “not the media.” There are a few stories that he did that bring out why media is important to science.
The first story is about the memories of men and women on which side of the brain is being used, and the story was done between Christmas and New Years Day. The men’s memories were in the right side of the brain and the women’s were on the left side, which means the reason why people have arguments about simple memories. A good example of an argument that was from his reporting is the memories of a marriage and each of them saw different ways the memory of the marriage.
The second story was done on Autism of young and older people. The test was done by playing a movie called “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf” to see how the eye movement went for the person. The person had to wear head gear that would allow the scientists see the eye movement of the person in a camera while the person watched the movie. The head gear also monitored the brain wave activity that could be the problem with the eyes from an Autism person. The analysis showed that the Autistic person would move there eyes another direction when a major scene came in the film. The study is to hope that one day Autism may be small treatable diseases like small pox. 
The third story Mr. Bazell showed is about the sleeping problems in that most Americans are not getting enough sleep and forgetting memories if they do not get a good night in bed. The memories in sleep mode will help a person retain memories for like an exam or speech that they need to give the next day. The tests were also done on mice that had monitors that looked like beanies with tubes coming out to look at the brain wave functions in sleeping and normal alertness during the day.
The last story is about global warming in 1992 and 1996 and the first date mentioned that global warming “could” occur in the world. Then in 1996, the technology came out to prove that in the 1990’s the Earth has been the hottest since in 400 years, and that the Earth can still go either direction of warming or back to a cooling state. The funny thing about science is the fact of how specific of a topic are the tests done on and is the technology good enough to make close yes or no answers. The trouble with global warming is that not every element has been fully answered to make a strong yes or no answer.
My opinion of the seminar that Robert Bazell talked about was very good to the fact that he was very honest about what he knew and what he did not know. The questions that people had were more of what a scientist would talk about, and he had no true answer. Mr. Bazell did give what he knew while doing some of his media reports especially when it came to medicine. The one thought he left us to remember is not to fully take the media seriously and try to make your own judgments by reading facts or personal ethics that a person goes by. -- Bradley Luther  

Fellows comments from the second lecture series

The Honorable Nils Diaz
"Energy for a Predictable Future"

Nils Diaz, former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), presented a lecture in New Port Richey on November 27th about the potential of nuclear energy as a safe, clean and politically stable source of electrical power. He outlined four essential factors for electrical supply; generation, distribution, storage and end-use. Although he maintained that there was no one simple solution to the problem of supply, he encouraged conservation in electrical use and diversification of fuel sources.
His main arguments for expanding the use of nuclear power were:
-nuclear power is not carbon based, therefore clean
-costs after plant construction are very predictable and not market-dependent
-nuclear industry has a safe, now mature record
-mature regulator (NRC) with an improved licensing process
-proven advanced technology and newer, safer reactors
-only sector of US infrastructure to fulfill all safety requirements
The main focus of his speech was the safety, reliability and necessity for clean, alternative electricity production. He was fairly optimistic that even the waste will be recycled with sufficient economic demand for the daughter products of the fuel. -- Biliana Ivanova 

Nils Diaz spoke in New Port Richey about using nuclear energy to supply our nation with electricity.  He explained that energy is needed for a predictable and that nuclear energy could help alleviate America’s reliance on foreign oil.  According to Diaz, there are four essential factors for supplying electricity: generation, distribution, storage, and end-use.  We should also work to improve conservation and efficiency by expanding our electrical sources.  
Dr. Diaz spent a significant amount of time explaining nuclear power generation.  He claimed that nuclear power is a major “baseload electricity producer” but could benefit by being increased.  Nuclear energy generation is thought to be a better alternative to traditional energy sources; it is not carbon based, leaves a small environmental footprint, and is safe and reliable.  Although the initial startup costs may be high, the costs to maintain the power plant levels off and it cost-effective in relatively short time.  The costs are also very stable since they are not market dependent.
Some people are concerned about the safety issues involved with nuclear power generation.  Older, more mature nuclear power plants, however, have established a safe record.  They have developed proven advanced technology (such as new safe and simple reactors).  The United States has also made enormous improvements in security since September 11.  In fact, there have never been no security problems or breaches.  Regulators at the NRC have also implemented an improved licensing process which has two steps: construction and operation.
I really enjoyed listening to Dr. Diaz speak.  He was very personable and seemed to be passionate about his subject.  However, I felt that I was in an advertising pitch.  He made wide claims about both Chernobyl and Three Mile Island (including the fact that no one died from the fall out).  If that is the case, he should have presented some supporting evidence.  I am not trying to claim he was wrong in his discussion, I just think he should have provided some strong data.  Overall, however, I enjoyed the presentation and learned a lot about a very possible alternative energy source. -- Britni Tokotch

                                                                                                        

The speaker was the Honorable Dr. Nils Diaz talking about the history and future of nuclear energy. He has served as a commissioner and the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission until 2006. He has played a key role in nuclear for the United States and countries like France because he wants us to have a safe environment by using a mostly non-pollutant and having everyone to be licensed properly in construction, maintaining, and disposal waste of Nuclear Plants. The seminar was based on three sub topics and they are: History, Facts, Closing out Fuel Consumption, and New License Process.
The history of nuclear that Dr. Diaz talked about is that there was way too many plants built in the past and were made poorly, but thankfully there were no major meltdowns all over the United States except Three Mile Island. He says that the leak was contained and the only people exposed were the ones inside the core in the plant. When TMI had the meltdown the investments went way down and no one was buying stocks for nuclear up until the last 12 years ago from now 2007. The Chernobyl accident was very horrible from all the effects that came from the site. The site was only filled by radiation whoever is close, as Dr. Diaz explained, and the infants that are born now are truly affected more than the parents. The people within the plant died instantly from the blast of the meltdown. The reason that the meltdown occurred is that the former government made no plans for safety measures.
The facts that he gave during the seminar were very informative to what happened in the past and what it is today. First, there are 104 nuclear plants in 30 states in the United States. Second, about 25 years of safety and operations at these plants within the U.S. Next, 16,000 billion of kw-hrs generated since 1980’s. Finally, mature technology and industry of 40+ year’s commercial service without harmful radiation.
Dr. Diaz then talked about that nuclear is the future over petroleum fuels because of helping this environment become cleaner. He says that nuclear is just part of the solution to get rid of using carbon fuels to make the Earth cleaner. The nuclear business will mostly be run by commercial use that should be under strict guidance for everything that happens at any plant no matter where in the world. Finally, he thinks that waste is not a problem because one day that waste will be come useful again for another task after being used in a nuclear plant.
The last thing he talked about briefly was the new license to make a nuclear plant function without having harm to people or the environment. The steps are as follows: Standard design, Early site picked for the future, and Combined operating license. The reason that Dr. Diaz help to design the new license is to keep track of what is going on in the plant, but every once in a while something does slip up and a problem is forgotten to be written down.
My own opinion of the seminar was good in that there was information that I did not know we had in the U.S. like the number of plants there are actually running. I felt like that the place where the seminar was low in interest not just in USF and the people who live close by to the campus, but also the people at the community college, too. In my own thought I think people still like to use more of the carbon fuel than that of the nuclear because of fear of meltdowns with radiation poisoning to our children. I am glad to meet Dr. Diaz that night because of what knowledge he can openly share with us how great nuclear can be part of the solution to our carbon consumption within this world. He had a great quotation in the power point saying about nuclear energy saying, “Large capacity, fission-powered generation should be added to the nation’s energy portfolio for the secondary, long term economic benefit, environmental stewardship and well being of our people.” --   Bradley Luther

Fellows comments from the first lecture series

The Honorable Carol Browner
"Important Choices: Environmental Decision-making for the 21st Century"

"Mrs. Browner went over three principles that she feels will help to manage the problem of global warming/climate change. The first principle is that decisions we make must be based on the scientific evidence of today. She used the fact that twenty years ago, the U.S. took lead out of gasoline. The second principle was that we should set standards even though we don't have ways in which to meet those standards at the time the standards are set. She used the effort to ban CFCs as an example of this. The third principle she discussed was that we must set standards even when cost appears to outweigh benefits. She used acid rain as an example. Legislators believed that handling acid rain would cost too much but when challenged, people found a cost-effective solution to resolve the problem of acid rain." - Georgina Johnson

"Carol Browner said a great many things during her speech on Thursday. One of the most profound ideas she voiced was that the main reason stronger laws for environmental protection wouldn't be passed by the government was the fear that the cost would outweigh the benefits. I can understand this fear, I can even sympathize with it. However, the fact remains that unless we take drastic action, there won't be any more benefits to consider. With the sheer amount of pollutants poured into the atmosphere by modern society, I don't feel like we have a lot of time to waste. We should set certain standards in regards to the health of the planet, even if we don't know how they will be met." - Alison Maloy

"Finally, Mrs. Browner said, ' Failure is not an option' and 'do public service'. The reason that she says this is that if people want to protect the environment then they must be aware of what is going on around the world and act as quick as you can before failure sets in completely. Also she says that public service is so good to do within the environment even if people criticize about the issue."

"My own opinion about this seminar was good that I got to listen to her in person before and after the seminar. i am glad to get to know her more personally by how she helped to push forward the administration and the laws behind the organization." - Bradley Luther

"Meeting Mrs. Browner in person was a pleasantly surprising and humbling experience. Despite the high profile of the positions she has occupied during her distinguished political career, she was not above amicably conversing with a group of shy students and taking a seemingly sincere personal interest in their studies and backgrounds. She was not only courteous but approachable and the complete opposite of the characteristics that so many politicians have come to embody."

"Carol Browner had a tremendous impact on the influence and power of the EPA and she is an inspiration to anyone interested in helping the environment." - Biliana Ivanova

"I found Mrs. Browner's talk very informative and great to listen to. I truly enjoyed having the opportunity to interact with her before the speech at the William's house. She is such a great person and so easy to talk to. Her presentation was extremely well put together and given. Of all the many seminars that I have attended, this one was definitely one of the best. I am really looking forward to the next Progress Energy lecture series." - Britni Tokotch