Public Acceptance Dilemma

"I am not going to believe you. You have vested interest in it."
"It is obvious that to you nuclear is good. Isn't it?"
Actually, most of the time you may not hear those words uttered by the audience, not even by a whisper. But, you can read them in their eyes.
In contrast, 'neutral experts' flown in by the anti-nuclear group would receive different treatment. They are believable, credible, and acceptable as exposing the real thing, the truth. They have no vested interest (other than seeing to it that nuclear is phased out). Who is going to dispute their views. Anyone in the nuclear area would have been disqualified by virtue of having the correct background and the authority to say so. That is the dilemma.
The aim of public acceptance program should not be to convert the unconverted, the hardcore. They would remain the same regardless of the argument. The objective should be to limit and curtail their ability to bring the public to their side. The focus should also be on the fence sitters, sitting between the pro and the anti groups. They should be won over. Perhaps through words of mouth, that is using others outside the nuclear fraternity as spokesperson. Those passive members of the pro group should be persuaded to say it loud. A public acceptance program should provide them the means for doing so.
Getting the positive aspects of nuclear energy sitting side by side with, if not replacing the image of the bombs, in the mind of the public I believe is the ultimate aim of any public acceptance program. Once achieved, the public would voluntarily mention those virtues when asked about nuclear, before or even without, blurting out Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or Three Mile Island, or Chernobyl.