[ RadSafe ] Scientific Consensus

[Maury Siskel]

Bernie, from a long retired scientist, admirer of your work, and  
admirer of Radsafe, I'm really an outsider to HP. First reaction, 
however,  to your post was, 'what a great idea'! Even did a search on 
professional organizations thinking that if most would agree to a 
position statement, that would be a great start. As the thought train 
chugged down the tracks it progressed along the same lines as Otto and 
Ward. Regrettably, they have summarized reality very well.

It remains true that public policy is a result of politics, not of 
science. Correctly said: "Demagoguery beats data in the making of public 
policy". Probably our only hopeful course favoring NP is to maintain 
public pressure (letters, calls, and votes) on congressional and other 
governmental bodies. The outcome is not assured; Ward has described 
these very well. And you know well EPA's continued promotion of the dire 
dangers of radon!

But the crucial need is to sustain hope and the concept of try and try 
harder. As an Army parachutist in a past life, I learned the true 
meaning of: the concept: "try"! We will not lose the NP issue until and 
unless we agree that we have been done in ....
Sincerely,
Maury&Dog           (maurysis at peoplepc.com)

PS; note that a simple phone call to a congressman's local office (not 
even a toll call to Wash.DC) probably is more influential than a single 
dinky vote every two years!
______________
"We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex 
-- but Congress can."

========================

Bernard L. Cohen wrote:

>    With so much talk and discussion of what is the scientific 
> consensus on global warming, it would be interesting to discuss the 
> scientific consensus on whether nuclear power is much less harmful to 
> human health  than burning fossil fuels to generate electricity. I am 
> sure there would be a much stronger scientific consensus on the 
> nuclear power issue, but the media and the public assume the contrary..
>    How could we document the scientific consensus on nuclear power? We 
> could compile endorsements from scientific societies -- does anyone 
> have such a compilation? We could take a poll of "knowledgeable 
> scientists"  -- how best to define that group? Would University 
> employed members of Health Physics Society be credible? Is there some 
> other Society with more credibility whose members could be polled? 
> Would the National Academy of Engineering be appropriate? I would like 
> to poll energy specialists on University faculties -- is there a clean 
> way to define these?
>    If people would make suggestions on these matters, I would be happy 
> to carry out the poll, or be a member of a group that does this or 
> oversees it. Better yet, could we get some media people, or well 
> recognized pollsters, involved? If a good program could be devised, I 
> believe I could find the money to finance it.
>    Since the world has discovered the meaning of "scientific 
> consensus", maybe we could take advantage of it. Your suggestions 
> would be most helpful.