Harold (and others),
This has been interesting. You seem to have settled into a meme about scientists choosing an all too private way to discuss science with the general public. After I write this, you might back away from it but you seem to believe that scientists choose to keep to themselves.
I know that isn't true. Sure, some scientists prefer "alone" time in the lab but plenty are as social as they come. The difficulty interacting with the public can't be explained by personality types or quirks.
It can be explained by the often challenging type of knowledge chased by scientists. It occurs by speculating, followed by time (often years) chasing the truth in the speculation. You say we write to a journal read by 20 but that part of the process is necessary - we have to share our speculations, then our data in support or against the speculations and it has to be done in great detail to allow colleagues to tear it down. That process of tearing down is not about opinion, or it is limited to those with highly informed opinions. This has to be done to an audience that has intense interest. Sorry that's only 20 readers.
And while I am at it, I am also sorry that learning some of these things can take years if not longer. There are, at least, 20 factors that come into play on the subject of safety of nuclear reactors in Japan. To make a really knowledgeable assessment of safety, it would take years of experience. What was wrong about your take on the matter was that you honestly believed you could learn enough from a Wikipedia article and your life experience.
It's truly not that way with most of science. Again, sorry and I wish it were easy. If it were, we would not be suffering the shortage of scientists and engineers we now see coming.

There are some things, many things in certain fields of study, that cannot be learned in an hour, a day, a year. When in grad school, I literally devoted 10-20 hours a day for